You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Anti immigration parties on the rise
March 29 2024 3.28pm

Anti immigration parties on the rise

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 5 of 22 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

 

leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 02 Sep 15 1.54pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.21pm

What constitutes an anti-British community though?

In terms of the UK, terrorism, seems to have a history of being by people who are British (UK Born Muslims and British Irish).

Doesn't that illustrate one of the problems - born here but loyalties lay elsewhere.

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View bright&wright's Profile bright&wright Flag 02 Sep 15 2.57pm Send a Private Message to bright&wright Add bright&wright as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 11.51am

Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 9.59am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 9.31am

Quote matt_himself at 02 Sep 2015 9.05am

Living standards are falling, youth unemployment is hefty and people across Europe are told to make people welcome......because.

Not necessarily my views but the failure of the European establishment to justify the benefits of the situation is to me the real failure.

I don't think there really is any real benefit to Asylum for a nation, at least not in the short term. However, given the alternative is sending civilians back into a genocidal civil war, that has shown no signs of letting up doesn't seem to be an option. Maybe a lower standard of living is better than dead children, mass rape, torture and murder.



Sorry, what genocidal civil war is happening in Calais?

A reasonable solution isn't to expect only some countries to deal with the problem. Also in the Calais cases we're probably talking about different people than the ones I am. I'm generally in agreement in regards to economic migration (esp EU working migration except as necessary to fill vaccancies).

What I am more concerned with is a tendency to put every migrant and asylum seeker into the same category. We have a responsibility towards refugees that isn't applicable to economic migrants.



We have a responsibility to refugees? Do you genuinely believe the Syrians would look after you if the shoe was on the other foot?

Also, if that's the case - what happens if there is a genocidal civil war in China? How are you going to incorporate 1 billion new people into Europe? Because they sure as sh*t wouldn't pop down over the border to Russia or India if they know Europe has an open-door policy for refugees.

 


'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Sep 15 3.13pm

Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 2.57pm

We have a responsibility to refugees? Do you genuinely believe the Syrians would look after you if the shoe was on the other foot?

Also, if that's the case - what happens if there is a genocidal civil war in China? How are you going to incorporate 1 billion new people into Europe? Because they sure as sh*t wouldn't pop down over the border to Russia or India if they know Europe has an open-door policy for refugees.

Yes, the assorted conventions on refugees we're signatories of, was passed through the UN, they define a refugee.

What Syria would choose to do is entirely irrelevant, given its run by a tyrant who includes genocide as a domestic policy, and is a known supporter of terrorism and murder. I tend to think of the UK as being able and capable of rising to human decency and standards.

As for China, we have granted asylum before to people persecuted by the Chinese state. I would imagine the best solution to a problem isn't to address unlikely hypothetical situations its also somewhat unlikely that a civil war in China would somehow displace 1bn people, given that would be effectively 3/4 of the entire population (and end the civil war).


Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Sep 2015 3.14pm)

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Sep 15 3.14pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Sep 2015 1.54pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.21pm

What constitutes an anti-British community though?

In terms of the UK, terrorism, seems to have a history of being by people who are British (UK Born Muslims and British Irish).

Doesn't that illustrate one of the problems - born here but loyalties lay elsewhere.

Not necessarily, some of those terrorists were very pro-British.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Sep 15 3.18pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.38pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.32pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.27pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.)

They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis.

I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.



By who, the World Police?

Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone.

I think you really need to look at a UN organization, such as those already involved with refugees or NGO with the idea being to equally distribute the application processing, rather than localize it. Ideally you want an organization that's can process waves of refugees in border states to a crisis as well.


They have no power to enforce anything on any country.

And what happens when you decide that they have to go to let's say Mexico and they all say no.

Then they get to return home. Clearly you can't use countries which are 'unstable' or a 'risk' (can't send a gay man to Angola who's fled Iran) , but clearly if you're not happy relocating to Mexico or Western Super-Mare your life isn't at risk, and you can go back to Syria.

That's how I see it. Even Preston should look a better option to someone who is a genuine refugee.



But that won't be fair if their mate lucked in and got UK, for example.

I like the idea but they'll find a reason why they can't go to every country they don't want to go to.

Obviously I'm not thinking splitting up families etc. Its not about fair, its about being arbitrary and as fair as possible to all involved.

I'm not even sure that the UK constitutes lucking out, I'd have gone with Germany, France, Norway, Belgium Sweden, Holland as being more the 'jackpot'.

You know your life sucks if moving to a council estate in Glasgow or Western Super-Mare is 'lucking out'


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 02 Sep 15 3.28pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.18pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.38pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.32pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.27pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.)

They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis.

I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.



By who, the World Police?

Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone.

I think you really need to look at a UN organization, such as those already involved with refugees or NGO with the idea being to equally distribute the application processing, rather than localize it. Ideally you want an organization that's can process waves of refugees in border states to a crisis as well.


They have no power to enforce anything on any country.

And what happens when you decide that they have to go to let's say Mexico and they all say no.

Then they get to return home. Clearly you can't use countries which are 'unstable' or a 'risk' (can't send a gay man to Angola who's fled Iran) , but clearly if you're not happy relocating to Mexico or Western Super-Mare your life isn't at risk, and you can go back to Syria.

That's how I see it. Even Preston should look a better option to someone who is a genuine refugee.



But that won't be fair if their mate lucked in and got UK, for example.

I like the idea but they'll find a reason why they can't go to every country they don't want to go to.

Obviously I'm not thinking splitting up families etc. Its not about fair, its about being arbitrary and as fair as possible to all involved.

I'm not even sure that the UK constitutes lucking out, I'd have gone with Germany, France, Norway, Belgium Sweden, Holland as being more the 'jackpot'.

You know your life sucks if moving to a council estate in Glasgow or Western Super-Mare is 'lucking out'


How far are you extending the family to? Adult siblings, cousins, in-laws etc?

You might not be, but they seem blindingly sure of it.

You know the chance of ending up in either of those two places is few and far between, and then you can simply move on once granted permission to stay. It's not even a arbitary system within the UK, meaning it's not fair on those in the South East.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View bright&wright's Profile bright&wright Flag 02 Sep 15 4.27pm Send a Private Message to bright&wright Add bright&wright as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.13pm

Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 2.57pm

We have a responsibility to refugees? Do you genuinely believe the Syrians would look after you if the shoe was on the other foot?

Also, if that's the case - what happens if there is a genocidal civil war in China? How are you going to incorporate 1 billion new people into Europe? Because they sure as sh*t wouldn't pop down over the border to Russia or India if they know Europe has an open-door policy for refugees.

Yes, the assorted conventions on refugees we're signatories of, was passed through the UN, they define a refugee.

What Syria would choose to do is entirely irrelevant, given its run by a tyrant who includes genocide as a domestic policy, and is a known supporter of terrorism and murder. I tend to think of the UK as being able and capable of rising to human decency and standards.

As for China, we have granted asylum before to people persecuted by the Chinese state. I would imagine the best solution to a problem isn't to address unlikely hypothetical situations its also somewhat unlikely that a civil war in China would somehow displace 1bn people, given that would be effectively 3/4 of the entire population (and end the civil war).


Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Sep 2015 3.14pm)


I don't think it's unlikely. How much of the Iraq/Syrian population is in IS? And how many are actually fighting them? I would say a very small percentage of the entire population. Add in the fact that China has nuclear weapons... wouldn't need many of the population to actually fight in a civil war.

I digress.

I think the fact that we give billions of pounds in foreign aid annually, have done for decades, that we already take in a large number of migrants and that these refugees come from a region of the world that have NEVER been welcoming to any group of people that is not Muslim, have never at any point been an ally to us in any war and would quite happily see Israel wiped off the planet - I'm not really sure we do owe them anything...?

 


'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Sep 15 4.31pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 3.28pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.18pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.38pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.32pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.27pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.)

They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis.

I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.



By who, the World Police?

Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone.

I think you really need to look at a UN organization, such as those already involved with refugees or NGO with the idea being to equally distribute the application processing, rather than localize it. Ideally you want an organization that's can process waves of refugees in border states to a crisis as well.


They have no power to enforce anything on any country.

And what happens when you decide that they have to go to let's say Mexico and they all say no.

Then they get to return home. Clearly you can't use countries which are 'unstable' or a 'risk' (can't send a gay man to Angola who's fled Iran) , but clearly if you're not happy relocating to Mexico or Western Super-Mare your life isn't at risk, and you can go back to Syria.

That's how I see it. Even Preston should look a better option to someone who is a genuine refugee.



But that won't be fair if their mate lucked in and got UK, for example.

I like the idea but they'll find a reason why they can't go to every country they don't want to go to.

Obviously I'm not thinking splitting up families etc. Its not about fair, its about being arbitrary and as fair as possible to all involved.

I'm not even sure that the UK constitutes lucking out, I'd have gone with Germany, France, Norway, Belgium Sweden, Holland as being more the 'jackpot'.

You know your life sucks if moving to a council estate in Glasgow or Western Super-Mare is 'lucking out'


How far are you extending the family to? Adult siblings, cousins, in-laws etc?

You might not be, but they seem blindingly sure of it.

You know the chance of ending up in either of those two places is few and far between, and then you can simply move on once granted permission to stay. It's not even a arbitary system within the UK, meaning it's not fair on those in the South East.

Those currently applying for asylum. So if you escape with your cousins, then yeah. If your cousins later flee then they might have to make do with living in a different country.

As for people moving around in the country, that's fair enough, once you've been granted asylum, you're a free citizen. If you're moving to the South East where the employment prospects are probably better, you've already proven yourself above some of the people already here.

I would say that until granted asylum, applicants should be more or less distributed across the UK, rather than ghettoized, in any and all areas, not just dumped in the s**ty parts of the UK and left to make the best of it.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 02 Sep 15 4.55pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 4.31pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 3.28pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.18pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.38pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.32pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.27pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.)

They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis.

I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.



By who, the World Police?

Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone.

I think you really need to look at a UN organization, such as those already involved with refugees or NGO with the idea being to equally distribute the application processing, rather than localize it. Ideally you want an organization that's can process waves of refugees in border states to a crisis as well.


They have no power to enforce anything on any country.

And what happens when you decide that they have to go to let's say Mexico and they all say no.

Then they get to return home. Clearly you can't use countries which are 'unstable' or a 'risk' (can't send a gay man to Angola who's fled Iran) , but clearly if you're not happy relocating to Mexico or Western Super-Mare your life isn't at risk, and you can go back to Syria.

That's how I see it. Even Preston should look a better option to someone who is a genuine refugee.



But that won't be fair if their mate lucked in and got UK, for example.

I like the idea but they'll find a reason why they can't go to every country they don't want to go to.

Obviously I'm not thinking splitting up families etc. Its not about fair, its about being arbitrary and as fair as possible to all involved.

I'm not even sure that the UK constitutes lucking out, I'd have gone with Germany, France, Norway, Belgium Sweden, Holland as being more the 'jackpot'.

You know your life sucks if moving to a council estate in Glasgow or Western Super-Mare is 'lucking out'


How far are you extending the family to? Adult siblings, cousins, in-laws etc?

You might not be, but they seem blindingly sure of it.

You know the chance of ending up in either of those two places is few and far between, and then you can simply move on once granted permission to stay. It's not even a arbitary system within the UK, meaning it's not fair on those in the South East.

Those currently applying for asylum. So if you escape with your cousins, then yeah. If your cousins later flee then they might have to make do with living in a different country.

As for people moving around in the country, that's fair enough, once you've been granted asylum, you're a free citizen. If you're moving to the South East where the employment prospects are probably better, you've already proven yourself above some of the people already here.

I would say that until granted asylum, applicants should be more or less distributed across the UK, rather than ghettoized, in any and all areas, not just dumped in the s**ty parts of the UK and left to make the best of it.


So you're going to detain them then?

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Sep 15 4.56pm

Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 4.27pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.13pm

Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 2.57pm

We have a responsibility to refugees? Do you genuinely believe the Syrians would look after you if the shoe was on the other foot?

Also, if that's the case - what happens if there is a genocidal civil war in China? How are you going to incorporate 1 billion new people into Europe? Because they sure as sh*t wouldn't pop down over the border to Russia or India if they know Europe has an open-door policy for refugees.

Yes, the assorted conventions on refugees we're signatories of, was passed through the UN, they define a refugee.

What Syria would choose to do is entirely irrelevant, given its run by a tyrant who includes genocide as a domestic policy, and is a known supporter of terrorism and murder. I tend to think of the UK as being able and capable of rising to human decency and standards.

As for China, we have granted asylum before to people persecuted by the Chinese state. I would imagine the best solution to a problem isn't to address unlikely hypothetical situations its also somewhat unlikely that a civil war in China would somehow displace 1bn people, given that would be effectively 3/4 of the entire population (and end the civil war).


Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Sep 2015 3.14pm)


I don't think it's unlikely. How much of the Iraq/Syrian population is in IS? And how many are actually fighting them? I would say a very small percentage of the entire population. Add in the fact that China has nuclear weapons... wouldn't need many of the population to actually fight in a civil war.

Well if nuclear weapons have been used, bizarrely in a civil war, then you could imagine that population of 1.3 billion is going to be a lot smaller. The significant factors in civil wars tend to be where you fall in terms of local demographics and sectarian division.

Around 3m people have been displaced by the Civil war as refugees, around 1/6th of the Population, to Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey. Around 150,000 have applied for Asylum in the EU and another 33,000 placed have been pledged by the EU (85% of which are in Germany). The UNHRC wants to find locations for another 130,000.


Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 4.27pm

I think the fact that we give billions of pounds in foreign aid annually, have done for decades, that we already take in a large number of migrants and that these refugees come from a region of the world that have NEVER been welcoming to any group of people that is not Muslim, have never at any point been an ally to us in any war and would quite happily see Israel wiped off the planet - I'm not really sure we do owe them anything...?

Foreign Aid, such as the foreign aid isn't a free hand out. It usually comes with 'cavets' for its use, and often is a loan, usually towards British interests.

Well except for Judaism, Christians (about six different types), Zoroastrians, Gnostics, Samaritanists, the Ba'hii, Isikism, Yarsanism, Mandeism, the Druze, Shabakism and Illahism. Then you have the migratory religions, Buddhism has always been popular in middle east, Hinduism and Seikhs also have a presence.

Apart from those, the Middle East has always been intolerant of other religions and beliefs. Its important to remember that you cannot define an entire geographical area and people, on the basis of the few that you heard about on the news.

Also in regards to War, I'd like to play the Lawrence of Arabia card (not to mention the Arab Legion that fought against the Axis powers). The Axis courted Arab Nationalists but Arabs (which isn't the same as Muslim) fought on both sides.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 02 Sep 15 4.58pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

I think what makes these immigration debates pointless is really that those on the pro side wish to win a philosophical/moral argument regardless of any facts or interpretation of facts while finding it impossible to accept that many others would just prefer it if migrants hadn't come here at all.
Both of these attitudes just reflect different aspects of human behavior.

Which ever side you are on, it surely must be agreed that we now have a whole lot of issues to deal with that we didn't have before. Some will ignore these because they don't fit with their belief system while others will play them up to excuse their own limitations.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle I suspect.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Sep 15 4.59pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 4.55pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 4.31pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 3.28pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.18pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.38pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.32pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.27pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.)

They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis.

I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.



By who, the World Police?

Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone.

I think you really need to look at a UN organization, such as those already involved with refugees or NGO with the idea being to equally distribute the application processing, rather than localize it. Ideally you want an organization that's can process waves of refugees in border states to a crisis as well.


They have no power to enforce anything on any country.

And what happens when you decide that they have to go to let's say Mexico and they all say no.

Then they get to return home. Clearly you can't use countries which are 'unstable' or a 'risk' (can't send a gay man to Angola who's fled Iran) , but clearly if you're not happy relocating to Mexico or Western Super-Mare your life isn't at risk, and you can go back to Syria.

That's how I see it. Even Preston should look a better option to someone who is a genuine refugee.



But that won't be fair if their mate lucked in and got UK, for example.

I like the idea but they'll find a reason why they can't go to every country they don't want to go to.

Obviously I'm not thinking splitting up families etc. Its not about fair, its about being arbitrary and as fair as possible to all involved.

I'm not even sure that the UK constitutes lucking out, I'd have gone with Germany, France, Norway, Belgium Sweden, Holland as being more the 'jackpot'.

You know your life sucks if moving to a council estate in Glasgow or Western Super-Mare is 'lucking out'


How far are you extending the family to? Adult siblings, cousins, in-laws etc?

You might not be, but they seem blindingly sure of it.

You know the chance of ending up in either of those two places is few and far between, and then you can simply move on once granted permission to stay. It's not even a arbitary system within the UK, meaning it's not fair on those in the South East.

Those currently applying for asylum. So if you escape with your cousins, then yeah. If your cousins later flee then they might have to make do with living in a different country.

As for people moving around in the country, that's fair enough, once you've been granted asylum, you're a free citizen. If you're moving to the South East where the employment prospects are probably better, you've already proven yourself above some of the people already here.

I would say that until granted asylum, applicants should be more or less distributed across the UK, rather than ghettoized, in any and all areas, not just dumped in the s**ty parts of the UK and left to make the best of it.


So you're going to detain them then?

No, but they will only get housing benefit and welfare paid in one local council, without an approved movement being approved. I'd also be insistant that they also underwent some skills and language classes during the period of application.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 5 of 22 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Anti immigration parties on the rise