Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).
Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
When you start to live in one of England's overcrowded cities you might shut up about scare mongering pal.
And when you decide to leave your over crowded city, which believe it or not, doesn't really exist in the UK compared to other parts of the planet, you will still find that the built over parts of the country only accounts for 2.5% of the total land mass.
You are being conned into believing a myth.
It exist where I live pal,to what it was 20 years .
And when you decide to come out of your large parts of unpopulated scotland to our poor overcrowded English cities,you might stop your bullshit of plenty of room here myths.
Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).
Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
The Isle of Man seems an eminently sensible place for us to park our illegal immigrants. Why has no one thought about it before?
They don't like 'comeovers' (people from the mainland) in the IOM. Illegals would stand no chance...
Rockall would be a better prospect, for a handful at least.
Suggest that some people read the second world war history of the IoM when it was used as a forced internment camp
Both pundits in the BBC newspaper wrap-up are agreeing that Philip Hammond is using racist language and whipping up hatred against immigrants. Presenter nods in agreement.
Fair and balanced.
He said millions of Africans want to maraud through Europe for economic reasons. This is Genghis Khan stuff here.
Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).
Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
When you start to live in one of England's overcrowded cities you might shut up about scare mongering pal.
And when you decide to leave your over crowded city, which believe it or not, doesn't really exist in the UK compared to other parts of the planet, you will still find that the built over parts of the country only accounts for 2.5% of the total land mass.
You are being conned into believing a myth.
It exist where I live pal,to what it was 20 years .
And when you decide to come out of your large parts of unpopulated scotland to our poor overcrowded English cities,you might stop your bullshit of plenty of room here myths.
Sorry, born in London, still visit occasionally and glad to leave. You are being conned into believing a myth.
Don't bother looking at road maps of England, Scotland or anywhere, if you want to measure the width as against the length, you will find that in some cases, motorways are 3 miles wide rather than 100 feet.
Within nearly every UK City there are large parks and green areas, most people can leave their homes and even by walking, they can be in the countryside within an hour. By car, 15 minutes.
That people decide to live in crowded conditions is really in their expectations of their lives.
If you have never been out of your city to see what is out side of it, or visited a local park, then, truly, I am really sorry for you.
Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).
Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
When you start to live in one of England's overcrowded cities you might shut up about scare mongering pal.
And when you decide to leave your over crowded city, which believe it or not, doesn't really exist in the UK compared to other parts of the planet, you will still find that the built over parts of the country only accounts for 2.5% of the total land mass.
You are being conned into believing a myth.
It exist where I live pal,to what it was 20 years .
And when you decide to come out of your large parts of unpopulated scotland to our poor overcrowded English cities,you might stop your bullshit of plenty of room here myths.
Sorry, born in London, still visit occasionally and glad to leave. You are being conned into believing a myth.
Don't bother looking at road maps of England, Scotland or anywhere, if you want to measure the width as against the length, you will find that in some cases, motorways are 3 miles wide rather than 100 feet.
Within nearly every UK City there are large parks and green areas, most people can leave their homes and even by walking, they can be in the countryside within an hour. By car, 15 minutes.
That people decide to live in crowded conditions is really in their expectations of their lives.
If you have never been out of your city to see what is out side of it, or visited a local park, then, truly, I am really sorry for you.
I have travelled extensively through out the UK, and I can honestly say that there is such beauty and variance in our towns, cities and countryside that makes me feel so humble and glad to live here.
The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor
Well well. This again shows why so many Labour members want a leader who's actually committed to doing some Opposition, rather than a leader who whips Labour MPs to abstain. There's going to be opportunities to stop Tory things hapenning right now with just a small number of Tory MPs who have a bit of conscience.
I have travelled extensively through out the UK, and I can honestly say that there is such beauty and variance in our towns, cities and countryside that makes me feel so humble and glad to live here.
And proud!
What part of the country do you live now then Mr A to Z.
The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor
Well well. This again shows why so many Labour members want a leader who's actually committed to doing some Opposition, rather than a leader who whips Labour MPs to abstain. There's going to be opportunities to stop Tory things hapenning right now with just a small number of Tory MPs who have a bit of conscience.
''...two Tory MPs...''
So just 4 more with some compassion for the poor needed.
I have travelled extensively through out the UK, and I can honestly say that there is such beauty and variance in our towns, cities and countryside that makes me feel so humble and glad to live here.
And proud!
Whenever I go back to the UK, I always take a few days to visit my beloved Yorkshire Dales. There is nowhere else like it.
Indeed. "considered as" is the language of naturalization. And Congress realized they had sowed confusion (under which you are still labouring) when they removed the NBC wording in 1795. No statute since has purported to confer NBC status on anyone, as obviously they can't...
No, it's not the language of naturalization. It's the language of stating what they were. e.g. English literature is considered an Arts subject. The idea that a child born to an American couple as they accidentally went into labour in Dubai airport isn't a natural born American is insane. They would simply register the child's birth as an American, as they would do in the US. There is no naturalization process to go through.
Indeed. "considered as" is the language of naturalization. And Congress realized they had sowed confusion (under which you are still labouring) when they removed the NBC wording in 1795. No statute since has purported to confer NBC status on anyone, as obviously they can't...
No, it's not the language of naturalization. It's the language of stating what they were. e.g. English literature is considered an Arts subject. The idea that a child born to an American couple as they accidentally went into labour in Dubai airport isn't a natural born American is insane. They would simply register the child's birth as an American, as they would do in the US. There is no naturalization process to go through.
Your "ideas" don't count for diddly-squat.
Read Rogers v Bellei again, and all the other cases I have provided...
FYI, between 1802 and 1855 Congress denied any kind of citizenship at all to foreign-born children of citizens (who were not citizens by 1802).
Indeed. "considered as" is the language of naturalization. And Congress realized they had sowed confusion (under which you are still labouring) when they removed the NBC wording in 1795. No statute since has purported to confer NBC status on anyone, as obviously they can't...
No, it's not the language of naturalization. It's the language of stating what they were. e.g. English literature is considered an Arts subject. The idea that a child born to an American couple as they accidentally went into labour in Dubai airport isn't a natural born American is insane. They would simply register the child's birth as an American, as they would do in the US. There is no naturalization process to go through.
Your "ideas" don't count for diddly-squat.
Read Rogers v Bellei again, and all the other cases I have provided...
FYI, between 1802 and 1855 Congress denied any kind of citizenship at all to foreign-born children of citizens (who were not citizens by 1802).
No case has officially ruled on the issue either, so your cases mean diddly squat. The consensus position of legal scholars is that children born as Americans are natural born citizens.
Indeed. "considered as" is the language of naturalization. And Congress realized they had sowed confusion (under which you are still labouring) when they removed the NBC wording in 1795. No statute since has purported to confer NBC status on anyone, as obviously they can't...
No, it's not the language of naturalization. It's the language of stating what they were. e.g. English literature is considered an Arts subject. The idea that a child born to an American couple as they accidentally went into labour in Dubai airport isn't a natural born American is insane. They would simply register the child's birth as an American, as they would do in the US. There is no naturalization process to go through.
Your "ideas" don't count for diddly-squat.
Read Rogers v Bellei again, and all the other cases I have provided...
FYI, between 1802 and 1855 Congress denied any kind of citizenship at all to foreign-born children of citizens (who were not citizens by 1802).
No case has officially ruled on the issue either, so your cases mean diddly squat. The consensus position of legal scholars is that children born as Americans are natural born citizens.
You do understand the difference between the rulings of the USSC and the bloviating of academics (never mind non-academics, ignorant partisan supporters) ?
I have travelled extensively through out the UK, and I can honestly say that there is such beauty and variance in our towns, cities and countryside that makes me feel so humble and glad to live here.
And proud!
Whenever I go back to the UK, I always take a few days to visit my beloved Yorkshire Dales. There is nowhere else like it.
Indeed. "considered as" is the language of naturalization. And Congress realized they had sowed confusion (under which you are still labouring) when they removed the NBC wording in 1795. No statute since has purported to confer NBC status on anyone, as obviously they can't...
No, it's not the language of naturalization. It's the language of stating what they were. e.g. English literature is considered an Arts subject. The idea that a child born to an American couple as they accidentally went into labour in Dubai airport isn't a natural born American is insane. They would simply register the child's birth as an American, as they would do in the US. There is no naturalization process to go through.
Your "ideas" don't count for diddly-squat.
Read Rogers v Bellei again, and all the other cases I have provided...
FYI, between 1802 and 1855 Congress denied any kind of citizenship at all to foreign-born children of citizens (who were not citizens by 1802).
No case has officially ruled on the issue either, so your cases mean diddly squat. The consensus position of legal scholars is that children born as Americans are natural born citizens.
I agree with you. I doubt anyone would be daft enough to try to pretend the law was and was intended to be anything otherwise.
The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor
Well well. This again shows why so many Labour members want a leader who's actually committed to doing some Opposition, rather than a leader who whips Labour MPs to abstain. There's going to be opportunities to stop Tory things hapenning right now with just a small number of Tory MPs who have a bit of conscience.
''...two Tory MPs...''
So just 4 more with some compassion for the poor needed.
You are not fooling anyone. So try a different tack. Real compassion is running a proper economy where you do not lie to people and pretend money grows on trees. Your 'poor' is an invention a figment of your bigoted imagination. Real poor are not helped by dumping them in a dependency culture - at a time when the economy has been creating hundreds of thousands of jobs that they could take up. The poor have seen their tax allowance rise significantly over the last 5 years and the minimum wage has gone up and will go up further. The needless dispersion of available funds actually fails the real poor.
Even The Guardian feels it has to follow Frank Fields analysis ''Field's analysis is that the public's attitude towards welfare is that you should get out what you put in. The trouble is that when Labour was in power it did the opposite. Gordon Brown used means-testing to spray £30bn on tax credits as a subsidy for poor families.'' http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/29/frank-fields-welfare-contribution-plan
(Interesting language that from the Guardian ... 'spray' benefits... I bet you would foam at the mouth if a Tory said that)
Field's idea of mutual insurance sounds reasonable but the notion that the rich would be the only losers in this is a bit naive I think. There are not enough 'rich' - we would all end up paying for the pleasure of realising what all our benefits pensions and health care actually cost.
Comments
And when you decide to come out of your large parts of unpopulated scotland to our poor overcrowded English cities,you might stop your bullshit of plenty of room here myths.
Don't bother looking at road maps of England, Scotland or anywhere, if you want to measure the width as against the length, you will find that in some cases, motorways are 3 miles wide rather than 100 feet.
Within nearly every UK City there are large parks and green areas, most people can leave their homes and even by walking, they can be in the countryside within an hour. By car, 15 minutes.
That people decide to live in crowded conditions is really in their expectations of their lives.
If you have never been out of your city to see what is out side of it, or visited a local park, then, truly, I am really sorry for you.
And proud!
Read Rogers v Bellei again, and all the other cases I have provided...
FYI, between 1802 and 1855 Congress denied any kind of citizenship at all to foreign-born children of citizens (who were not citizens by 1802).
One is THE LAW. Anything else is Bullshit....
Real compassion is running a proper economy where you do not lie to people and pretend money grows on trees.
Your 'poor' is an invention a figment of your bigoted imagination. Real poor are not helped by dumping them in a dependency culture - at a time when the economy has been creating hundreds of thousands of jobs that they could take up. The poor have seen their tax allowance rise significantly over the last 5 years and the minimum wage has gone up and will go up further. The needless dispersion of available funds actually fails the real poor.
Even The Guardian feels it has to follow Frank Fields analysis
''Field's analysis is that the public's attitude towards welfare is that you should get out what you put in. The trouble is that when Labour was in power it did the opposite. Gordon Brown used means-testing to spray £30bn on tax credits as a subsidy for poor families.''
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/29/frank-fields-welfare-contribution-plan
(Interesting language that from the Guardian ... 'spray' benefits... I bet you would foam at the mouth if a Tory said that)
Field's idea of mutual insurance sounds reasonable but the notion that the rich would be the only losers in this is a bit naive I think. There are not enough 'rich' - we would all end up paying for the pleasure of realising what all our benefits pensions and health care actually cost.