Renagade 0 Posted July 3, 2003 LINK HERE "TAXPAYERS are footing the bill for a translator because an asylum seeker elected as a councillor struggles to speak English." "Mr Leese said: "It is up to the people of Longsight if they want to elect an Urdu speaker or an English speaker." hehhe..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MLF 0 Posted July 3, 2003 so hes not actually a citizen of the UK? i dont think its right he should be in a Governing position if he is not a citizen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
munger 25 Posted July 3, 2003 Grrr This asylum business drives me nuts. I tell ya, here in the UK our taxes are crawling up because illegal immigrants are being provided with nice, warm, newly furnished apartments until either their cases are dealt with or they are found jobs, either of which will probably take six months, if not longer. What riles me the most is that the UK, being an island, is one of the hardest countries in Europe to get into and also the furthest away from the source of the immigrants, but they're purposely heading here because our government is a soft touch. We need to get tough on them. I'd like to see what would happen if we had the same immigration regulations as say, the US. They'd be out on their ear before they could unpack. And damn right too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Gripe 0 Posted July 3, 2003 Grrr  This asylum business drives me nuts. I tell ya, here in the UK our taxes are crawling up because illegal immigrants are being provided with nice, warm, newly furnished apartments until either their cases are dealt with or they are found jobs, either of which will probably take six months, if not longer. What riles me the most is that the UK, being an island, is one of the hardest countries in Europe to get into and also the furthest away from the source of the immigrants, but they're purposely heading here because our government is a soft touch. We need to get tough on them. I'd like to see what would happen if we had the same immigration regulations as say, the US. They'd be out on their ear before they could unpack. And damn right too.  Nice to see that the UK still produces caring tolerant people, perfect for life in modern, multicultural Britain! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USSoldier11B 0 Posted July 3, 2003 Quote[/b] ]Nice to see that the UK still produces caring tolerant people, perfect for life in modern, multicultural Britain! Here in the U.S. you actually have to be a citizen to be elected to a public office. Wow, sounds a lot like the U.S, Liberal Democrats here like to throw gov't money at everything they can think of. (except the military) Quote[/b] ]but they're purposely heading here because our government is a soft touch. That's what it looks like to us. Open societies will always be vulnerable to shady types. (hence the empty spot in the Manhattan skyline.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joltan 0 Posted July 3, 2003 You can get elected without being a citizen??? And how come nobody realized his poor language skills before the election (well, his voters may understand urdu, but the other party members???). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
acidcrash 0 Posted July 4, 2003 not to seem racist or anything, but its getting out of hand with the masses of asylum seekers... and then to have smeone in a job such as this unable to speak fluent english i think is abit daft and should be rectified...but what can the masses do with labour in power eh? *shakes head* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hellfish6 7 Posted July 4, 2003 He was elected by the majority of voters. How is that wrong? How can you criticize it? They must have known that he wasn't a citizen and/or didn't speak English well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted July 4, 2003 It's the same in Canada. Immigrants arrive and some are put up on welfare by our bleeding heart government. I have no problem with people that want to come here and carry their own weight, but if they don't, ship em' back. I beleive that Mohammed Farah Aidid's wife was living here in Canada with some of her children off of government money, all while U.S. troops were fighting her husbands militia in 1993 in Somalia. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Gripe 0 Posted July 4, 2003 Quote[/b] ]They must have known that he wasn't a citizen and/or didn't speak English well. 42% of his constituents are non-white and a large proportion speak Urdu as he does, which is why he was voted in as he was able to represent his ward most accurately. He is learning english and so should be applauded for standing up to represent his community as that is the name of the game of democracy. All this negative asylum bashing although undoubtedly fun for you all is totally un-helpful, this man should be assisted as he is working to integrate his Urdu speaking constituents with the rest of the population, which can only be good in the long run. As for the taxpayers paying for his translator I think they should, as it was they who elected him. I would be very surprised if any of his Asian constituents were objecting to this funding, it is probably the xenophobic 'english' or bitter Labour councillors after losing the election! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloney 0 Posted July 4, 2003 haha I saw the topic and I had to post this website... www.engrish.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted July 4, 2003 It's the same in Canada. Immigrants arrive and some are put up on welfare by our bleeding heart government. I have no problem with people that want to come here and carry their own weight, but if they don't, ship em' back.I beleive that Mohammed Farah Aidid's wife was living here in Canada with some of her children off of government money, all while U.S. troops were fighting her husbands militia in 1993 in Somalia. Tyler And one of Aidid's sons was a Marine. Funny thing is he left the Marines, and replaced his father as head of the clan when he died. I think this fellow being elected to represent the people of his area is a pretty good sign that democracy is working. By the people, and all that. The people in his area thought he would best represent them, so they elected him. Instead of whinging about someone of a different ethnic backgound being elected to office, maybe you want to look at why there is the intollerance that makes this seem like a bad thing to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazysheep 1 Posted July 4, 2003 Eeeh, that's not so bad. Last local elections a monkey got elected as mayor of Hartlepool. I kid you not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted July 4, 2003 In Lajitas, Texas, a beer-drinking goat was elected mayor, and was then castrated by a man named Jim Bob. The goat's name is Henry Clay III- I suppose he comes from a long and proud line of goat-mayors. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/CrimeBlotter/crimeblotter020807.html So, you think you've got problems? lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted July 4, 2003 LOL, tex. Warin Said: Quote[/b] ]Instead of whinging about someone of a different ethnic backgound being elected to office, maybe you want to look at why there is the intollerance that makes this seem like a bad thing to you. I never said that the guy getting elected was a bad thing. Re-read my post. I was talking of the problems that some immigrants bring with them and our governments weak actions in dealing with them, in response to Mungers' post. Bad immigrants cause problems, just look at T.O. Sure, alot of native Canadians cause problems too, but we don't have a place to deport them to. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USSoldier11B 0 Posted July 4, 2003 I'm taking it that since this guy is receiving asylum, he is not a naturalized citizen. Am I correct? I'm not being xenophobic, but I think it's a very bad idea to just hand leadership positions to foreign nationals....His ethinicity has nothing to do with what why I see this as wrong. I have nothing against even our own president being black/ asian/ etc...etc.. as long as it's within the rules of the contitution. (However, the U.S. President must be of natural birth the U.S. any naturalized foreigner may not be) While plenty of immigrants to the U.S. get their citizenship, live here the required amount of time and are sucessfully elected to our Congress, there is nothing wrong with that. If you wish to govern in a nation, you should at least speak, read, and write the common language....These processes are in place to foil instances that would involve the rise of a popular foriegn insurrection in the U.S. gov't and to assure that candidates are truly running for the best interest of the U.S. and their constituents. (putting aside the degree of self interest that we know all politicians have) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Renagade 0 Posted July 4, 2003 "He said his party had received clear legal advice from the town hall's electoral services unit saying there was no problem. The advice said any citizen of a Commonwealth country, including Pakistan, could be a councillor." thats how someone in his position though u really should of read the article that i linked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted July 4, 2003 Look at this  lmao, you Brits kill me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LowLevelFunctionary 0 Posted July 4, 2003 Look at this  well that just ruined my day.  Hopefully labour will be out by then, and if they are going to do that they should at least allow us to vote on it because I know quite a few black people, asked them about it and they were absolutely disgusted by it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MLF 0 Posted July 4, 2003 Grrr  This asylum business drives me nuts. I tell ya, here in the UK our taxes are crawling up because illegal immigrants are being provided with nice, warm, newly furnished apartments until either their cases are dealt with or they are found jobs, either of which will probably take six months, if not longer. What riles me the most is that the UK, being an island, is one of the hardest countries in Europe to get into and also the furthest away from the source of the immigrants, but they're purposely heading here because our government is a soft touch. We need to get tough on them. I'd like to see what would happen if we had the same immigration regulations as say, the US. They'd be out on their ear before they could unpack. And damn right too.  agree totally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 4, 2003 If you wish to govern in a nation, you should at least speak, read, and write the common language.... so, welome to CA... se habla espanol? I have to agree with Major Gripe and Warin's posts. If he was elected by his people to represent him, then so be it. In US, AFAIK, all levels of gov't election candidates must hold US citizenship. If Britain lacked that requirement, then it can be remedied with change in their law. and the Union Jack is supposed to be representation of 4 parts - Englaend, Scotchland, Northern Irerland, and, Whales. I say the idea is quite stupid to change add new color, unless UK is ready to face the fact that their colonialization also made them susceptable to this outcome(more immigrants). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Gripe 0 Posted July 5, 2003 Quote[/b] ]Englaend, Scotchland, Northern Irerland, and, Whales I hope to God that the above was some strange American sarcasm so I won't launch a tirade against American ignorance of the lands beyond their borders! Â People should realise that this man Nigel Turner is a failed artist desperately seeking some sort of fame or infamy. The whole idea of changing the flag to represent the multi-racial population of Britain is nonsense, the Union Jack holds no national, racial or religious identity, it is a symbol the signify the unity bwtween the countries that constitute GB. Quote[/b] ]"If I flew the union jack from a flagpole in my garden, many people would see it as a racist statement," Where he gets this idea from i don't know, although to a limited extent the George cross, is thought of by the authorities to hold racist connotations I have never heard or seen the Union Jack being used as a racist rallying symbol. How sad we Brits are sometimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites