Asylum?

[Caesar the Great]

seems like illegal immigrants get the same benefits asylum seekers do in europe....

i just love people who argue that illegal immigrants are taking american jobs. most of the jobs they get aren't even wanted by anyone else, we need to get cheap labor from somewhere

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i don't think anyone (outside perhaps the BNP) has a problem with genuine asylum seekers, it's the ones who come over here and abuse the system that people complain about. and their seems to be an ever increasing amount of those, people who, for example get caught by immigration, sometimes having been in britain illegally for months, and only then claim asylum.

They are all tarred with the same brush. The average person doesn't discriminate and lumps all asylum seekers into one "evil, smelly, untrustworthy" pidgeonhole.

The biggest waste of the system I perceive is that they don't pay taxes and are not being productive to the country. If we allowed these people to work legally while their claim is being reviewed they have money to spend rather than government paying for living costs. If they pay taxes too then even the Daily Mail can't complain.

[Gangerolf]

dp

[Gangerolf]

If we allowed these people to work legally while their claim is being reviewed they have money to spend rather than government paying for living costs.

Don't you think that would just increase the number of phony asylum seekers? I mean, wages are far higher in eg. Britain than in eg. Albania... And processing their applications isn't exactly free. Not to mention health care, welfare, police and stuff like that..

[Dauphin]

I doubt it would increase that much. If they are coming here for jobs they will do it whether they can earn legally or illegally. I'd rather they do it legally and be documented.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
The biggest waste of the system I perceive is that they don't pay taxes and are not being productive to the country. If we allowed these people to work legally while their claim is being reviewed they have money to spend rather than government paying for living costs. If they pay taxes too then even the Daily Mail can't complain.

if we could get a system in place which removes those whose claims are 'manifestly unfounded' very quickly, without the years and years of fannying about, which takes place presently, and actually remove those whose claims are rejected (instead of letting them 'disappear'), then this would be a great idea. the problem is letting people work while they're claims about being processed allows those who have no business being here to put down roots, which makes it all the more difficult to get rid of them in the end.

[Kropotkin]

Xenophobic people seems to be repeating the same urban myths over and over again. Often they hold little if any truth or lacks empirical support.

For example around here (in Sweden that is) I've heard quite a few times about what kind of cars refugee immigrant drives (expensive). I've also read in Malcom X's biography that he often heard a white family he lived with after he had been taken from his mother talkabout all those fancy cars that black people had. This was before WW2 and on the other side of the globe. Xenophobism is a global movement I guess.

[red_jon]

The whole argument that they are rich is so ridiculous.

And the Labour government keeps tightening to laws on asylum seekers, yet people still aren't happy.

[C0ckney]

yes the government keeps tightening the laws and the courts do their level best to untighten them again! so nothing changes and the problems don't get solved.

[red_jon]

I wasn't aware asylum seekrs costed that much...

[C0ckney]

well they're not exactly free. i'm sure a lot of the money currently spent within the current chaotic system could be spent much better elsewhere.

[red_jon]

COmpared to how much our country has, aslyum seekrs are barely anything. More money is wasted elsewhere.

[Kropotkin]

What asylum seekers in particular and immigrants in general actually costs a society depends on a number of often ambiguous factors. That a asylum seeker actually costs during their time as asylum seekers doesn't necessarily mean that they will impose a cost in a longer perspective. To refuse refugees on the sole argument that they cost money as asylum seekers is about as smart as to start deporting school pupils. And besides the purely economic factors there's other factors to take into consideration as you might understand.

[C0ckney]

rj, i agree, but that is hardly a reason to do nothing when the system is clearly in a mess. it would take a lot less time and effort to reform the asylum system than for example the NHS.

kropotkin, no one is talking about refusing refugees in the first place. genuine refugees are always allowed to stay. what we are talking about when we talk about refusal are those who are not refugees, and dealing with them costs a lot of money and is done in a very poor and inefficent way, which a lot of people in this country (myself included) want changed.

[red_jon]

Cockney - a lot of people are against refusing all asylum seekers.

And Kropt is right - we have a declining population - aren't we going to be needing these people in a few years?