You Lucky Peeps Up There........
ChatterBank1 min ago
Asylum Seekers
37 Answers
To all you xenophobes who fret about the asylum seekers arriving on our shores, I highly recommend you watch this youtube video which will tell you almost all you need to know about the current situation.
Although all of it is informative; of most interest to me was Rushi Sunak saying that he is bringing in new laws that mean if you come to the UK illegally, you can’t stay – no matter how hard you try. Of course, people arriving at our shores seeking asylum are entitled to do so, so any such new laws Sunak proposes will not stop the boats.
The presenter also points out the number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK in 2002 was over 84,000 and in 2022 just over 74,000, asking if you knew what the government were doing in 2002 about the immigration problem?
Although all of it is informative; of most interest to me was Rushi Sunak saying that he is bringing in new laws that mean if you come to the UK illegally, you can’t stay – no matter how hard you try. Of course, people arriving at our shores seeking asylum are entitled to do so, so any such new laws Sunak proposes will not stop the boats.
The presenter also points out the number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK in 2002 was over 84,000 and in 2022 just over 74,000, asking if you knew what the government were doing in 2002 about the immigration problem?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
They are unsustainable. Oxford Street in London is awash with rough sleepers, mostly Rumanian according to the BBC, and genuine Afghani refugees still don't have permanent homes. The health service, along with other public services, is buckling, crime is on the rise, the public purse is being milked relentlessly on many fronts on a daily basis, and still more are encouraged by the Hymies of this world to come. There is no sense in it whatsoever.
Extremely likely very much more than ¾ are bogus. As has been pointed out many times, where is the non-safe country anywhere near the UK ?
It's pointless pointing out there is no legal requirement to seek refuge/asylum in the first country one reaches, because if one doesn't do so then one has chosen to change one's status from refugee/asylum seeker to economic migrant. In which case, going elsewhere to seek asylum is bogus.
Besides all nations have a duty to protect itself from economic immigrant invasion, and so if the nation decides an individual must seek refuge in the first safe country and not carry on through to impose themselves where they demand admittance, then the nation has the right to make such a criteria.
Economic migrants are at liberty to request entry and residency through the proper channels from the safe country they are in, and where they apparently forgot they'd initially intended to seek refuge.
It's pointless pointing out there is no legal requirement to seek refuge/asylum in the first country one reaches, because if one doesn't do so then one has chosen to change one's status from refugee/asylum seeker to economic migrant. In which case, going elsewhere to seek asylum is bogus.
Besides all nations have a duty to protect itself from economic immigrant invasion, and so if the nation decides an individual must seek refuge in the first safe country and not carry on through to impose themselves where they demand admittance, then the nation has the right to make such a criteria.
Economic migrants are at liberty to request entry and residency through the proper channels from the safe country they are in, and where they apparently forgot they'd initially intended to seek refuge.
//So Aber’s valid concerns, trump asylum seekers right to apply for asylum here – and they should go and apply for asylum somewhere else?//
Yes. Or better still remain where they are and try to sort out the problems faced by their own nations. As it appears here, many countries face an exodus of their young men (and asylum seekers who turn up in rubber boats are predominantly young men) who have left behind their elderly relatives, wives, girlfriends, sisters and children. Those remaining have to deal with the problems their country faces – without their young men - and it indicates to me that perhaps, in many places, things are not quite so bad as are made out.
In any case, despite your belief to the contrary, the influx to this country (both in conventional migration and what I term unconventional – i.e. arriving without leave) is unsustainable. Under the current arrangements there is simply no limit to the number of people who arrive here without leave and who must be accommodated, fed and watered. There will come a time when this country, along with other developed European nations (predominantly the target destination of those leaving Africa and Asia) will have to say that, despite our obligations under the 1951 treaty, we can no longer accommodate any more. I would argue that point has already been reached in the UK and that this country, along with many others, will have to press for either a drastic change to the treaty or withdraw as signatories to it.
Simply saying “they have the right to come here” does not overcome the many problems their arrival causes and in pure practical and financial terms, it cannot be sustained. This is not particularly a Tory/Labour thing. If you believe it is, explain what plans the Labour Party has to deal with the small boats problem (apart from its threatened amnesty – i.e. not considering asylum claims properly - for those already here).
And you didn’t answer my question – why do you begin many of your threads with an insult?
Yes. Or better still remain where they are and try to sort out the problems faced by their own nations. As it appears here, many countries face an exodus of their young men (and asylum seekers who turn up in rubber boats are predominantly young men) who have left behind their elderly relatives, wives, girlfriends, sisters and children. Those remaining have to deal with the problems their country faces – without their young men - and it indicates to me that perhaps, in many places, things are not quite so bad as are made out.
In any case, despite your belief to the contrary, the influx to this country (both in conventional migration and what I term unconventional – i.e. arriving without leave) is unsustainable. Under the current arrangements there is simply no limit to the number of people who arrive here without leave and who must be accommodated, fed and watered. There will come a time when this country, along with other developed European nations (predominantly the target destination of those leaving Africa and Asia) will have to say that, despite our obligations under the 1951 treaty, we can no longer accommodate any more. I would argue that point has already been reached in the UK and that this country, along with many others, will have to press for either a drastic change to the treaty or withdraw as signatories to it.
Simply saying “they have the right to come here” does not overcome the many problems their arrival causes and in pure practical and financial terms, it cannot be sustained. This is not particularly a Tory/Labour thing. If you believe it is, explain what plans the Labour Party has to deal with the small boats problem (apart from its threatened amnesty – i.e. not considering asylum claims properly - for those already here).
And you didn’t answer my question – why do you begin many of your threads with an insult?
why do i not want them here??.i don't want more manchester/london bomb's,dont want more lee rigby's.dont want more young girls being used and abused.there are others, but you don't need me to recount them all.and before you say don't tar them all with the same brush.i know not all muslims are terrorist's,but all terrorist's are muslim
