Prejudice
"Are you prejudiced?" asks StapMyVitals. Have you been a victim of prejudice? Are you a columnist for a popular daily newspaper? Don't bang on about how you never judge people on first impressions - no-one will believe you.
( , Thu 1 Apr 2010, 12:53)
"Are you prejudiced?" asks StapMyVitals. Have you been a victim of prejudice? Are you a columnist for a popular daily newspaper? Don't bang on about how you never judge people on first impressions - no-one will believe you.
( , Thu 1 Apr 2010, 12:53)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Asylum Seeker ≡! Immigrant
"Asylum Seeker ≡! Immigrant"
An asylum seeker is someone who is at very real risk; yes there are illegal immigrants, yes there are those that sponge, etc., yes there are those that take the piss and I do know all the tricks how people manage to stay in the country "but I lost my passport, it was stolen!" is one (meaning they can't send them back to their home country as it can't be definitely identified), but asylum seekers are a real problem, not to us, but for us all - I say give them help, give them a country and social security and somewhere safely to bring up their children.
I come from a family that immigrated to the UK before the concept of 'asylum seeker' or refugee was in law, and now we're a nice, good, contributing family.
Also, what part of you really thinks that none of the parties work in British interest? Do you think all these politicians, especially the tories, and all the civil servants are tripping over themselves to sell us out to the forrins? Sometimes what's best for others may also be best for us, don't confuse spiting foreigners with furthering ourselves and vice versa. As far as I'm aware, in terms of international politics, Britain is considered incredibly stubborn in pursuits of her own interests - far more so than many other nations.
( , Mon 5 Apr 2010, 14:45, 1 reply)
"Asylum Seeker ≡! Immigrant"
An asylum seeker is someone who is at very real risk; yes there are illegal immigrants, yes there are those that sponge, etc., yes there are those that take the piss and I do know all the tricks how people manage to stay in the country "but I lost my passport, it was stolen!" is one (meaning they can't send them back to their home country as it can't be definitely identified), but asylum seekers are a real problem, not to us, but for us all - I say give them help, give them a country and social security and somewhere safely to bring up their children.
I come from a family that immigrated to the UK before the concept of 'asylum seeker' or refugee was in law, and now we're a nice, good, contributing family.
Also, what part of you really thinks that none of the parties work in British interest? Do you think all these politicians, especially the tories, and all the civil servants are tripping over themselves to sell us out to the forrins? Sometimes what's best for others may also be best for us, don't confuse spiting foreigners with furthering ourselves and vice versa. As far as I'm aware, in terms of international politics, Britain is considered incredibly stubborn in pursuits of her own interests - far more so than many other nations.
( , Mon 5 Apr 2010, 14:45, 1 reply)
Asylum seeker =/= genuine asylum seeker
I am extremely familiar with the situation regarding asylum seekers. And if you re-read my post, it was not specifically directed at them - more in general towards people who just come here to take. But I shall respond to you.
It is a very common misconception that all asylum seekers have problems in their own countries. Well I can tell you for a fact that the majority of them are merely economic migrants.
In 1951, the UK signed up to the United Nations Convention pertaining to the status of refugees. This convention states that if someone claims asylum in a signatory country, that country is legally obliged to process their claim. In 1951, after the second world war there were a lot of displaced people who had genuine problems: for example, Jews whose homes had been destroyed, and were not safe in society in central Europe.
However, over 50 years on, the word "asylum" is abused by people who are basically economic migrants. People who would not normally be granted a visa, who abuse the 1951 convention to take advantage of the fact that we MUST accept them to process their claim - even if the claim is obviously bogus.
And because they destroy their passports (which means, by the way, that their FIRST act on British soil is a criminal act) - and it is often very difficult to obtain new passports for them, it means that even if it's obvious that their asylum claim is bogus, by the time is is decided they have simply melted away into society, and we can't physically find them in order to send them home.
Also consider that someone who is genuinely fleeing for their lives is supposed to claim asylum in the first "safe" country they reach. They're not supposed to travel thousands of miles, halfway round the world, in order to target the United Kingdom.
Ask yourself: why is it that there are so many people in North France, trying to slip into a lorry bound for Dover? France is a safe country. But no - they don't want to stay in France: they want to come to the UK, where the benefits are more generous!
I come from a family that immigrated to the UK before the concept of 'asylum seeker' or refugee was in law, and now we're a nice, good, contributing family.
Well that's great: good for you. That's entirely what I said in my original post - no problem with genuine immigrants who contribute.
By the way, regarding politics: I do not particularly consider myself right-wing. I am not a Tory. I do not belong to any party. I support the provision of health and social care, and affordable housing to the least well-off. But I do not support providing those things FOR FREE to non-British people people whose primary purpose in coming here is to claim them!
( , Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:53, closed)
I am extremely familiar with the situation regarding asylum seekers. And if you re-read my post, it was not specifically directed at them - more in general towards people who just come here to take. But I shall respond to you.
It is a very common misconception that all asylum seekers have problems in their own countries. Well I can tell you for a fact that the majority of them are merely economic migrants.
In 1951, the UK signed up to the United Nations Convention pertaining to the status of refugees. This convention states that if someone claims asylum in a signatory country, that country is legally obliged to process their claim. In 1951, after the second world war there were a lot of displaced people who had genuine problems: for example, Jews whose homes had been destroyed, and were not safe in society in central Europe.
However, over 50 years on, the word "asylum" is abused by people who are basically economic migrants. People who would not normally be granted a visa, who abuse the 1951 convention to take advantage of the fact that we MUST accept them to process their claim - even if the claim is obviously bogus.
And because they destroy their passports (which means, by the way, that their FIRST act on British soil is a criminal act) - and it is often very difficult to obtain new passports for them, it means that even if it's obvious that their asylum claim is bogus, by the time is is decided they have simply melted away into society, and we can't physically find them in order to send them home.
Also consider that someone who is genuinely fleeing for their lives is supposed to claim asylum in the first "safe" country they reach. They're not supposed to travel thousands of miles, halfway round the world, in order to target the United Kingdom.
Ask yourself: why is it that there are so many people in North France, trying to slip into a lorry bound for Dover? France is a safe country. But no - they don't want to stay in France: they want to come to the UK, where the benefits are more generous!
I come from a family that immigrated to the UK before the concept of 'asylum seeker' or refugee was in law, and now we're a nice, good, contributing family.
Well that's great: good for you. That's entirely what I said in my original post - no problem with genuine immigrants who contribute.
By the way, regarding politics: I do not particularly consider myself right-wing. I am not a Tory. I do not belong to any party. I support the provision of health and social care, and affordable housing to the least well-off. But I do not support providing those things FOR FREE to non-British people people whose primary purpose in coming here is to claim them!
( , Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:53, closed)
"Well I can tell you for a fact that the majority of them are merely economic migrants."
If it's a fact, I'm sure you can back it up. How big a majority?
How many people are we talking about in total?
What proportion is that of the total workforce, the total unemployment figures?
Are immigrants relatively a net drain or a net profit for the UK?
How many of those asylum seekers aren't *allowed* to work?
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:28, closed)
If it's a fact, I'm sure you can back it up. How big a majority?
How many people are we talking about in total?
What proportion is that of the total workforce, the total unemployment figures?
Are immigrants relatively a net drain or a net profit for the UK?
How many of those asylum seekers aren't *allowed* to work?
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:28, closed)
In my line of work
I have first-hand experience of asylum seekers. I know how many are genuinely suffering persecution in their own countries, and how many are merely making excuses to come here and claim money from the British taxpayer.
You can't rely on statistics, by the way - they're all massaged.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:40, closed)
I have first-hand experience of asylum seekers. I know how many are genuinely suffering persecution in their own countries, and how many are merely making excuses to come here and claim money from the British taxpayer.
You can't rely on statistics, by the way - they're all massaged.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:40, closed)
I've met three asylum seekers through my parents church,
they all seemed genuine to me so that means I reckon 100% of asylum seekers are genuine.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 11:02, closed)
they all seemed genuine to me so that means I reckon 100% of asylum seekers are genuine.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 11:02, closed)
And I have met MILLIONS
and every single one was a model citizen.
Of course, you can't rely on statistics.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:44, closed)
and every single one was a model citizen.
Of course, you can't rely on statistics.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:44, closed)
That is a lie
You have not met "millions of asylum seekers". There are not one million asylum seekers in this country.
On the other hand, I am telling the truth when I say I have met thousands of them.
If you disagree with me then please come up with a reasoned argument, and I will respect you. If, however, you just argue for the sake of being a knob, then I will not.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:17, closed)
You have not met "millions of asylum seekers". There are not one million asylum seekers in this country.
On the other hand, I am telling the truth when I say I have met thousands of them.
If you disagree with me then please come up with a reasoned argument, and I will respect you. If, however, you just argue for the sake of being a knob, then I will not.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:17, closed)
And if you want to present "facts" to justify your position,
please come up with facts rather than handwavy anecdotes that Must Be True Because A Bloke Off The Internet Said So. While dismissing actual facts as "massaged".
For the record, I don't think you're a racist. But all the signs seem to indicate you're a nationalist bigot, and I'm not sure that that's much better.
The BNP are not "one of the few parties whose policies actually put British citizens first". Their policies put whites of British descent first, and I doubt you need the difference spelling out. But regarding my point above, as long as you see people as a nationality first and a human being second, as far as I'm concerned you'll remain firmly in the "unpleasant" category in any case.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:55, closed)
please come up with facts rather than handwavy anecdotes that Must Be True Because A Bloke Off The Internet Said So. While dismissing actual facts as "massaged".
For the record, I don't think you're a racist. But all the signs seem to indicate you're a nationalist bigot, and I'm not sure that that's much better.
The BNP are not "one of the few parties whose policies actually put British citizens first". Their policies put whites of British descent first, and I doubt you need the difference spelling out. But regarding my point above, as long as you see people as a nationality first and a human being second, as far as I'm concerned you'll remain firmly in the "unpleasant" category in any case.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:55, closed)
You do realise...
...that 'asylum seeker' is a legal title as handed out by the British government, thus all asylum seekers are genuine.
There is no such thing as a 'bogus' asylum seeker. If you worked with them, you'd know.
( , Thu 8 Apr 2010, 10:44, closed)
...that 'asylum seeker' is a legal title as handed out by the British government, thus all asylum seekers are genuine.
There is no such thing as a 'bogus' asylum seeker. If you worked with them, you'd know.
( , Thu 8 Apr 2010, 10:44, closed)
Also.
Immigrants have no recourse to public funds, thus it is fairly difficult to sponge off the ether. What exactly are they sponging off of?
Also, to say that Britain has 'too many' refugees is arse. Europe houses 25% of the world's refugees, of which 3% reside in the UK.
As for working, asylum seekers are not allowed under law to work for (at least) the first year. If they don't manage to jump the hurdle of prejudice, the maximum income support they can receive is 70% of a British citizens.
Here are some more 'massaged' figures for those capable of absorbing facts:
www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/practice/basics/truth.htm
( , Thu 8 Apr 2010, 11:13, closed)
Immigrants have no recourse to public funds, thus it is fairly difficult to sponge off the ether. What exactly are they sponging off of?
Also, to say that Britain has 'too many' refugees is arse. Europe houses 25% of the world's refugees, of which 3% reside in the UK.
As for working, asylum seekers are not allowed under law to work for (at least) the first year. If they don't manage to jump the hurdle of prejudice, the maximum income support they can receive is 70% of a British citizens.
Here are some more 'massaged' figures for those capable of absorbing facts:
www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/practice/basics/truth.htm
( , Thu 8 Apr 2010, 11:13, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread