Asylum?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by red_jon
Cockney - a lot of people are against refusing all asylum seekers.

eh?

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

well i suppose that would depend on demographic trends, in france for example the birth rate is rising again, i think it's between 1.9 and 2.0, 2.1 is the rate at which the population is maintained. if something similar happens in the UK within the next few years, we won't need as many immigrants.

and if it doesn't, then surely it would be better to have a proper system of immigration so that we only get the sort of people that we want. rather than have every tom, dick and abdul coming here by abusing the asylum system.

[red_jon]

Our birth rate is declining and shows no signs of picking up. It think it;s current less than 1.8, thouh I'm not 100% sure. The noyl reason our population is growing at all is due to immigration.

[C0ckney]

which is what my second point, err, points at

[red_jon]

There's nothing really wrong witht he one we have at the moment. Asylum seeker's aren't costing that much and aren't as big a problem as it is being made out.

[C0ckney]

so you think it's better to have everyone come here by abusing the asylum system rather than have a proper system in place which ensures that only those who we want to come in do so?

[red_jon]

But who are the collective 'we'? You have to remember there are an awful lot of racist bigots in this country - and do you think the public would allow refugess from Iraq, etc?

It's not about who we want - it's about who is in danger. Until recently we didn't allow people in who were going to be killed due to sexual orientation, for example.

It's surely a plus to our society if we let people in. Do you think the US would be in as good a position as it is now if it wasn't for immigration? And we would have been in big ytrouble if it wasn't for the immigration of the 60s.

[C0ckney]

It's not about who we want - it's about who is in danger. Until recently we didn't allow people in who were going to be killed due to sexual orientation, for example.

you seem to be confusing asylum seekers with immigrants in general (which i was talking about). with regard to asylum seeker, you are right, it isn't about who we want, but with immigrants it should certainly be about who we want.

we, i suppose i'm talking about the country as a whole. in this context i mean people britain want and need to immigrate, doctors, nurses, teachers, IT specialists and others with useful skills.

i agree that britain can benefit greatly from letting people in, but i think that there should be a proper system in place for doing so.

the risks of letting the abuse of the asylum system continue have been shown in recent months, many of those arrested on terrorism related chanrges (including in connection with the ricin poison in london) recently have been asylum seekers. a jamacian cleric in london, of the same ilk as captain hook and who has been linked with funding terrorist groups has also been found to be an asylum seeker.

[red_jon]

Oh, yeah you're right in regards to immigration.

I do remember a friend of mine saying we shouldn't allow aylum seekrs in because they could be terrorists, but to be honest there are always going to be sympathisers of radicals in any country - the only way to help prevent terrorism (beyond the usual precautions) is to not treat other countries so badly.

[Kropotkin]

Cockney: Well, yes of cource. Bureaucracy can often if not always be done better. It's probably better for both the country and the asylum seeker if it is done in a fast and efficient way. As long as the ones refused in fact ends up in dire straits due to fawlts in the laws and regulation. Some preliminary research from Sweden about the effects of long times in limbo as a asylum seeker can have serious effects on the individual in his future life in his or her new country. Long times in some sort of camp leads to institutionalization just as it does for a criminal.

As for the demographic aspect. Most western European countries have a ageing population and sometimes also a declining population. It's not first and foremost the size of the population that's the problem but the relative size of the work force. An older population might imply a smaller workforce without a absolute decline in population.

There's a lot of other aspects to talk about when it comes to immigration. First and foremost the qualities not just the quantities of immigration. In the future we'll probably see a hardening struggle between countries and region to attract qualified labour.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by red_jon
Oh, yeah you're right in regards to immigration.

I do remember a friend of mine saying we shouldn't allow aylum seekrs in because they could be terrorists, but to be honest there are always going to be sympathisers of radicals in any country - the only way to help prevent terrorism (beyond the usual precautions) is to not treat other countries so badly.

well that's another thread entirely i would imagine

kropotkin, yes i think that research is not at all surprising. that's the thing about the current system, it's not good for genuine asylum seekers, it's not good for britain and it's certainly not good for british taxpayers, the only people it benefits are those who abuse it who can stay here for years and often don't get removed at all. if claims could be dealt with quickly then genuine asylum seekers could get on with rebuilding their lives without the effects of detention and those who are not refugees could be sent home without all the current fuss and nonsense that entails. sadly with the current government, that doesn't seem overly likely to happen.

yes i agree with you about the demographics and working populations, although those trends are not set in stone, as france is proving.

as to your last point, i couldn't agree more, that is why we need a proper system in britain to make that we can not only let, but attract those types of people that we need, and, equally, keep out those we don't.

[Kropotkin]

Sadly enough a number of issues often hinders a rational allocation of the immigrant population. Those issues takes the form as simple and petty discrimination to problems for the actors on the labour market to value the education and knowledge of the foreigner in combination with language difficulties. It's probably not realistic in a modern economy to use all of their knowledge and education due to so called culturally specific human (or social) capital* but it seems that a lot could be done to improve this aspect.**

* I'm not a real fan of the human capital theory but the term is widely known.

** I mainly base this on Swedish experiences but i can't see why the general lines wouldn't hold for the british situation.

[DanS]

That's because asylum seekers are some of the most persecuted people by our gov't in the US.

Not really. I have a couple of friends who went through the process and, while long and a hassle, it isn't so bad. The recent changes for some asylum seekers don't preclude successful application at all.

[chequita guevara]

Refugees are supposed to live in camps in horrible squalor. If they aren't, well then they're just cheating the system.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Re asylum, this doesn't seem to be an issue over here. Maybe because it's so easy to be an illegal immigrant--no incentive to claim assylum.

It's an issue for INS. According to a episode of 60 Minutes I saw a few years ago, most asylum seekers here disappear once they get out of the airport. Apprarently at that time there were 100,000 unaccounted asylum seekers in the US (hardly a large number considernig the size of our population).

[Kropotkin]

...or considering the size of your population of illegal immigrants (7 millions according to one estimate).