A good result in Blackburn last night?

[Rage]

UN law states that refugees must go to the nearest safe haven. So I don't see why we should let them in our country when even the UN states that they have no right to be here-and i dont see how that makes me a rascist. Why should people that were born in this country be forced to live in this multi cultural thing. British culture in Britain. Muslim culture in the Muslim world and so on. That is not rascist. It is well known that this division in our cities will lead to violence(look at Northern Island) so why try it with out having some sort of referendum on whether the British people choose to live in a Multi cultural Britain? Because if one person says that they do not want Britain like this they are immediately branded a rascist but if millions vote for against multi culturism then the politicians will have to listen.

[Worthingtons]

Caligastia hit the nail on the head there, which was the point i was trying to make. I assumed however, you may be intelligent enough to read between the lines Gimp.

As for having a problem with people in a different COUNTY, I'm not sure where you got that from, I made only one county specific comment, which was a positive one.

Cheers
Matt

[spartak]

You are a very poor debater Rage - trying to move the argument away from what I said onto safer ground. To make it easier for you let me repeat what I actually said.

he reveals himself by his willingness to catagorise people by their ethnic background and deny those who don't fit his perception of the right background as undeserving of basic humkan rights. The term for somone who does that is "racist".

Do you deny that you do not consider it important if people categorised by their ethnic or national background ar3e denyed basic human rights to facilitate their removal from the UK?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Taz
Do you deny that you do not consider it important if people categorised by their ethnic or national background ar3e denyed basic human rights to facilitate their removal from the UK?

I thought they were talking about illegals.

[spartak]

How are they illegal if they come to the UK and claim asylum? Its not illegal to do that is it? Well not yet. And why should the law be changed to remove the same protections from them as others in the country have?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Taz
How are they illegal if they come to the UK and claim asylum? Its not illegal to do that is it? Well not yet. And why should the law be changed to remove the same protections from them as others in the country have?

I was mistaken, I thought they were talking about those who came in illegally.

[Rage]

If the refugee came from a surrounding country or Britain was the closest safehaven then they have a right to claim asylam under our current law. However if the refugees country borders or is closer to another country where it is considered safe and ony comes to Britain because of our generosity at the expence of taxpayers then they shold be denied asylam and removed from the country.

And yes to me national and ethnic backrounds mean a lot, everyone places people in catogaries(English, Scottish, American, christian, hindu) so I do not see your problem with this.

You also avoided my question, why not let the people decide whether they want to live in a multi cultural society?
PC beauracrats(sp?) are afraid of the answer.

[Worthingtons]

The discussion is to do with both, legal and illigal. We have a bigger problem with the illigals here than legal's.

And there is no dought whatsoever the illigal immigrants will still get access to this new GP's.

[Jaakko]

There's something to be said about people who fear that uneducated, desperate refugees/immigrants are going to steal their jobs.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Rage
UN law states that refugees must go to the nearest safe haven. So I don't see why we should let them in our country when even the UN states that they have no right to be here

Under the Dublin Convention asylum seekers are not obliged to claim asylum in the first country they reach, and there may be good reason for them not doing so. If you have friends and family who can support you in country A, why claim asylum in country B where you will have no support?

Ever considered why these refugees are coming here?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Rage

And yes to me national and ethnic backrounds mean a lot, everyone places people in catogaries(English, Scottish, American, christian, hindu) so I do not see your problem with this.

You also avoided my question, why not let the people decide whether they want to live in a multi cultural society?
PC beauracrats(sp?) are afraid of the answer.

Oh, trust me. I won't avoid this one.

Britain has been a multicultural society ever since the Romans popped in. Even before that time it's development has been shaped by waves of immigrants.

Britain is a multi-cultural society. You have the right to decide whether you want to live in it, and if the sight of black faces causes you or anyone else a problem then the door's the rectangular thing in the wall.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The Claims
" …we resent the scroungers, beggars and crooks who are prepared to cross every country in Europe to reach our generous benefits system."
The Sun, 7/3/01
The Facts
Is Britain really the land of milk and honey? In fact, no. Asylum seekers are not allowed to claim mainstream welfare benefits. If they are destitute, their only option is to apply for support with the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), the Government department responsible for supporting destitute asylum applicants. NASS support is very basic indeed. A single adult, for example, has to survive on £37.77 a week - 30% below the poverty line. It is therefore irrational to suggest that asylum seekers embark on arduous and often dangerous journeys to the UK for that amount of money.
There are several European countries, such as Belgium, Ireland and Denmark, which give in fact more financial support to asylum applicants than the UK does.
Asylum applicants are not allowed to work for the first six months of their asylum application date. This means that even though many of them bring valuable skills and qualifications with them, they simply have to rely on NASS support if they are destitute.

The Claims
"Around 80 per cent of those who claim refugee status are eventually judged to be bogus".
Mail on Sunday, 14/10/01
The Facts
In fact, in 2001, in 31% of initial asylum decisions, the Home Office granted either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. The Refugee Council also estimates that taking into account applicants who were successful at different appeals and where the Home Office overturned its own initial refusal decision, the total number of successful applicants in 2001 was as high as 51%. That the initial decision rate is so much lower than the final one is a reflection of the poor quality of decision-making at the initial stage.
A large number of asylum seekers have their applications refused on purely procedural grounds. Many are unable to complete the Statement of Evidence Form, on which they have to outline their reasons for seeking asylum, within the required ten-day deadline in English. In 2001, 18% of asylum applicants were rejected on such grounds. It takes good legal advice to challenge such decisions. 9% of Afghan asylum applicants in 2001 were refused on non-compliance grounds. Yet, of all Afghani asylum applicants, as many as 71% were given protection and allowed to stay in the UK.

The Claims
"…illegals flooding into UK…"
Daily Star, 31/10/01
The Facts
In January 2002, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against a polling company, which sent out a fax referring to asylum seekers as 'illegals', as racist, offensive and misleading. Asylum seekers are not in the UK illegally. The UK has signed the 1951 Convention on Refugees, which means that anyone has the legal right to come here, apply for asylum and remain in the UK until a final decision on their asylum application has been made.
The idea that Britain or indeed any European country is a 'soft touch' is simply not true. Due to ever tougher immigration controls along European borders, it is now virtually impossible for people fleeing persecution to reach Britain without resorting to the use of false documents. In recognition of this fact, Article 31 of the 1951 Convention on Refugees prohibits governments from penalising refugees who use false documents. Many are forced into the hands of smugglers to reach safety and may even end up in the hands of traffickers to be exploited for their labour.
Such statements fail to recognise the connection between the situation in countries of origin and the people who seek refuge in the UK. The vast majority of asylum seekers continue to come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Sri Lanka, where serious human rights abuses continue to occur - even the British tabloids cannot deny that.

The Claims
"Our town's too nice for refugees...they will try to escape, rapists and thieves will terrorise us"
Daily Express, 23/3/02
The Facts
A report published by the Association of Chief Police Officers recently confirmed that there is no evidence for a higher rate of criminality among refugees and asylum seekers. In fact, having fled from their home country, they are more likely to become victims of crime in the UK. There have been countless attacks on dispersed asylum seekers around Britain, including the murder of an asylum seeker in Glasgow in 2001. The murder prompted the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to condemn the British media for provoking racial hatred.

The Claims
"Asylum cheats are a threat to our future"
From the Mail on Sunday, 4/3/01
The Facts
This idea ignores the enormous contribution that refugees make to the economic and cultural life of the UK. Refugees bring with them a wealth of skills and experience - even the Home Office has recognised this and aims to put such skills to good use.
Research carried out by Personnel Today in November 2001, found that 9 out of 10 employers want to take on refugees to meet skills' shortages, but do not due to ignorance of the law and confusing Home Office paperwork.
According to a recent Home Office study, migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees - are far from being a burden on UK tax payers. On the contrary, in 1999-2000, migrants in the UK made a net fiscal contribution of approximately £2.5 billion, worth 1p on income tax.

The Claims
"Refugees are flooding into UK 'like ants".
Daily Express, 7/11/01
"Britain is top asylum haven"
Daily Mail, 2/2/02
The Facts
Put in proportion, the figures tell a different story. Just 71,700 asylum applications were made in the UK last year - an 11% fall compared to 2000. Far from being the top destination, the UK ranked 12th in the EU in terms of asylum applications in relation to the overall population in 2001.
The truth about refugee movements is that the vast majority flee to countries bordering their home country. Nearly two thirds of all refugees are found in the Middle East and in Africa. The Middle East hosts more than 6 million refugees, and there are more than 3.3 million refugees in Africa. The world's poorest countries bear the responsibility for the largest numbers of refugees.

The Claims
"Broken promises on asylum cheats...only 2,450 were deported in the final 3 months of last year".
Daily Star, 01/03/02
The Facts
The actual number of individuals removed was in fact 2,935. Although this falls short of the Home Office's own considerable target of removing 2,500 unsuccessful asylum seekers a month, there are clear reasons why the Home Office may not be able to remove someone. The person may be ill, pregnant or indeed the country of origin is unlikely to accept the person back because of lack of documentation.
Asylum seekers are NOT cheats because they have been unsuccessful with their asylum application - after all, they have exercised a fundamental human right. At the same time, examining a person's claim for asylum against the tight criteria set out in the 1951 Convention on Refuges, is a difficult process. Asylum Aid ( <http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/AA%20pages/appeals.htm>) continues to document many cases where asylum seekers failed in the process simply because the Home Office decisions are often based on inaccuracies, failures to probe certain issues, and an overemphasis on trying to discredit the applicant during the asylum interview.

The Claims
"These immigrants are not escaping from persecution. No-one from France is persecuting them, so they could apply for asylum there."
The Yorkshire Post, 10/09/01.
The Facts
The truth is that we don't know whether the people in the Sangatte refugee camp have in fact escaped persecution, whether they will actually apply for asylum, whether they will succeed if they do, or whether they simply come as migrants.
Under the Dublin Convention, someone wishing to apply for asylum in a European Union country does NOT actually have to apply in the first 'safe' European country they get to as there may be very strong reasons why the person should apply in the UK. They may have family members here or they may feel more secure because of strong community links here in the UK.
Supposedly 'safe' European democracies may not be as safe as for asylum applicants as we think. Different countries have different interpretations of who should be given refugee status under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. For example, France has a record of returning many Algerians to face further abuses at home and Germany have returned Tamils to danger in Sri Lanka. The EU is now in the process of harmonising asylum policies, which may eventually lead to a common interpretation of the Convention on Refugees.

The Claims
"Bogus refugees treated better than UK citizens"
The Sun, 18/02/02
The Facts
This is one of many reports claiming detained asylum seekers are living in a lap of luxury at the tax payers expense. In fact, the United Nations has severely criticised the UK's detention record for its lack of independent judicial review of the decision to detain. The UK detains asylum seekers for longer and with less scrutiny than in any other European country. In effect, asylum seekers are kept in prison-like circumstances even though they have NOT committed any crime, and on top of that are even exempt from the natural justice available to UK citizens. Recent Government figures show that 27% of people had been detained for more than four months. 5% had been detained for over a year.
The bail provisions of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act, which if implemented would have given asylum seekers automatic right to a bail hearing if detained, are to be repealed in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill 2002, which is being debated in Parliament at the present time.

If you would like to help the Refugee Council challenge negative and distorted media coverage please e-mail us rotectrefugees@refugeecouncil.org.uk>

[spartak]

Do you agree then Rage, that you are a racist?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia


It seems unlikely that they would encourage certain sections of the community to apply if they didn't have any intention of hiring them over others. To think otherwise is naive.

Naive? I'd call your own position paranoid, Cal. I've applied for such jobs and got them, without having to resort to minstrel make-up. How many times have you been turned down for British jobs for being too white?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

What irks me most is the fact that this country used to take great pride in accepting refugees. Perhaps that sounds unthinkable to the kids, but in the 60's, 70's and 80's we welcomed the Biafrans, Bangladeshis, Vietnamese and Eastern European refugees/dissidents with open arms. It was a source of immense national pride that we did so.

Christ knows where we went wrong. The "Daily Mail" is probably to blame at some point.

Spink- I want an answer from you.