PDA

View Full Version : Refugee Problem



thewizeard
07-10-2003, 11:56 AM
As I don't think this has been talked about before, I thought it might be interesting to air it here, to see what the members ideas are on solving the huge problem.

I believe in helping refugees who have been displaced, through war or political reasons. I also believe that they should receive help in "integrating" into the soceity as soon as possible. They should be able to find work, offered housing and education.

I don't agree that refugees who have lived here for many years should be forced to leave against their will.

Lastly, do you believe that refugees should find asylum in their own region?

What do you think?

j2k4
07-10-2003, 12:35 PM
nigel123-

It would help to know where exactly "here" is?

ilw
07-10-2003, 12:54 PM
I think judging by other comments he's a brit

Neil__
07-10-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by nigel123@10 July 2003 - 12:56
As I don't think this has been talked about before, I thought it might be interesting to air it here, to see what the members ideas are on solving the huge problem.

I believe in helping refugees who have been displaced, through war or political reasons. I also believe that they should receive help in "integrating" into the soceity as soon as possible. They should be able to find work, offered housing and education.

I don't agree that refugees who have lived here for many years should be forced to leave against their will.

Lastly, do you believe that refugees should find asylum in their own region?

What do you think?



Finding asylum in the refugees own area as you say is the only sticking point
I agree fully that refugees should be given all the benefits of other citezens
of the country they are accepted at

But how could you have a ruke as to where they claim
if you say closer then countries will just pass the buck so I disagree
but if you say Asylum seekers should claim assylum in the first country they can then you have the problem of families being distributed around the world with no real contact to each other.

but then you have the draw to english speaking countries as the most popular second language by far

this is why America Canada and here in the UK (among others) are popular safe havens

It's a tricky dilema but on the whole if there in danger it's our duty to help them if they ask.

When it comes to Financial refugees then thats what international aid is for
and we can't take them in.

We could end up just as poor as they were and that isn't assylum
that's stupidity.

As for the case that the population of europe is shrinking and getting older
then without immigrants whose going to pay taxes for our retirement?


Neil

thewizeard
07-10-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@10 July 2003 - 12:35
nigel123-

It would help to know where exactly "here" is?
Hello, for me `here´ is the Netherlands. For you, I have no idea. I don't think the problem is only a Dutch problem, so if you live in the UK then that's where `here´, is and If you live in the USA then that is where `here´, is. Etc,etc anon. I left it vague so that everyone could describe their own country´s particular situation/ problem. I hope I have made myself clearer now.

Neil__
07-10-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by nigel123+10 July 2003 - 15:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nigel123 @ 10 July 2003 - 15:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@10 July 2003 - 12:35
nigel123-

It would help to know where exactly "here" is?
Hello, for me `here´ is the Netherlands. For you, I have no idea. I don&#39;t think the problem is only a Dutch problem, so if you live in the UK then that&#39;s where `here´, is and If you live in the USA then that is where `here´, is. Etc,etc anon. I left it vague so that everyone could describe their own country´s particular situation/ problem. I hope I have made myself clearer now. [/b][/quote]


nigel123

And here in Europe.
do you think it&#39;s a european issue or should Individual countries
draw up their own legislation?

Neil

thewizeard
07-10-2003, 03:21 PM
All these countries have signed up to the 1951 United Nations Convention.

Neil__
07-10-2003, 03:25 PM
I know but the U.K. is pressing ahead with it&#39;s own legislation and does that pressadent threaten our joint european imigration policy.

Remember conventions get broken.

Neil

thewizeard
07-10-2003, 03:32 PM
As member of the United Nations, the UK´s legislation will have to be within the guidlines of the convention. They are co-signataries.

j2k4
07-10-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by nigel123+10 July 2003 - 09:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nigel123 &#064; 10 July 2003 - 09:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@10 July 2003 - 12:35
nigel123-

It would help to know where exactly "here" is?
Hello, for me `here´ is the Netherlands. For you, I have no idea. I don&#39;t think the problem is only a Dutch problem, so if you live in the UK then that&#39;s where `here´, is and If you live in the USA then that is where `here´, is. Etc,etc anon. I left it vague so that everyone could describe their own country´s particular situation/ problem. I hope I have made myself clearer now.[/b][/quote]
I&#39;m a North American currently resident slightly below Canada and far, far north of Mexico.

If your intent is to ask the question of refugee (re)settlement generically, I guess I&#39;d have to say I favor an offer of help, with limitations.

First (unfortunately) they would have to be vetted for terrorist sympathies.

I think every attempt should be made to ascertain whether a refugee wishes to remain a refugee or seeks a change in status (citizenship).

If the latter, immediate enrollment in citizenship classes followed by naturalization.

If the former, who could say, short term? Make them comfortable and facilitate a return as soon as possible. Disposition of such cases would resist commonality.

I am reminded of the nomadic existence of the Palestinians; apparently the only solution for the refugee problem would be for there to be no more of them; and NO, I don&#39;t mean "get rid of them"-I mean that such accomodations be made that no one ever need to seek refuge ever again.

The problem is insoluble.

Neil__
07-10-2003, 03:41 PM
Do you think that it would be better for europe of other than than individual countries trying to find loopholes in the existing conventions and therby put at risk other countries policies
Or would Europe be better as a whole with a truely universal policy

Remember the problems Britain had with the songat (Unsure of spelling) refugee camp in france. which was deliberately placed in walking distance of the french goods depot that supplied the trains into the U.K.

A europe wide policy would stop this manipulation of one country over another

Please dont quote conventions. Have an opinion. It is your topic.

Neil

thewizeard
07-10-2003, 04:14 PM
I thought I made my opinion clear at the begining? The convention is mentioned because that is the foundation.

Neil__
07-10-2003, 04:22 PM
nigel123
so you wholeheartedly support the convention and you believe that it is perfect in every way. you understand it&#39;s implications throughout the eec and therfore have no differing opinion.
Every word is sacrosanct and there is no room for improvement.

At least answer your own question and have a view on that.

well if you are scared to answer a direct question. then I won&#39;t bother your post with more pointless speculation.

Neil

thewizeard
07-10-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@10 July 2003 - 16:22
nigel123
so you wholeheartedly support the convention and you believe that it is perfect in every way. you understand it&#39;s implications throughout the eec and therfore have no differing opinion.
Every word is sacrosanct and there is no room for improvement.

At least answer your own question and have a view on that.

well if you are scared to answer a direct question. then I won&#39;t bother your post with more pointless speculation.

Neil
Neil, if you go back to my first post you will see my question at the end, "What do you think?"

I am not interested in my own opinion as I am aware of it. It&#39;s your opinion and others that I find more important.

In the Netherlands, my daily work is helping asylum seekers who have achieved a status; often after many years of legal wranglings, settle and integrate into soceity.

Sometimes I have to explain to them that they have to return to their own country, and I am often confronted with their fear and helplesness.

Many of "our" refugees who have to return have children, born in the Netherlands, going to school and only speaking the dutch language.

Is that fair?

Rat Faced
07-10-2003, 04:59 PM
I think a number of DIFFERENT issues are being lumped together here.

A Refugee is a displaced person, and we should help as much as possible..remembering that their HOME is elswhere, and they should be repatriated as soon as possible. eg Kroations, Bosnians etc. The reason that they are refugee&#39;s was that they were facing Racial Cleansing, their homes etc were being destroyed. It was RIGHT that we took them in and helped. Its not right to keep them here indefinatly IN THAT STATUS...they should be re-patriated.

They could of course ask for ASYLUM.

Different rules, and again, people should NOT be forced to return to places where they are at risk of their lives for their political beliefs.

Either of these could ask for IMMIGRATION rights.

This means they want to be a part of the country that they are now in..again, fine..IF they then swear allegiance to the new country and become a citizen of that country.


I have nothing against ANYONE staying as long as they like in the UK, if they can finance it. If they want me to help finance it, then they should be in one of the above groups.

Neil__
07-10-2003, 05:23 PM
nigel123
do you believe that refugees should find asylum in their own region?


Why are you so evasive?

Like I said and concidering your position
I think it even more important that you give some opinions
you have first hand experience that will make your position very interesting.
or is this just a personal data collection for some sort of thesis.

You have asked and we answered
Your turn
do YOU believe that refugees should find asylum in their own region?

Neil

Ron
07-10-2003, 05:58 PM
For me, "here" is Belgium.
I don&#39;t mind political refugees, but lately we seem to get more and more &#39;economical&#39; refuges here.
And our government, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that refugees can obtain the Belgian nationality without speaking the language, respecting the laws and/or customs, let alone have ANY intention to integrate.
Hell, we&#39;ve got one who publicly declares he doesn&#39;t recognize our law&#33;&#33;&#33;
A problem for a lot of people here is, that refugees have more rights than natives.
I pay a LOT of money on taxes and VAT every year, still, I don&#39;t have the same rights as someone who just came down here, and never paid a cent.
Doesn&#39;t seem right somehow.
When I get sick, I have to pay it out of my own pocket, or take some private (very expensive) health insurance.
When I go bankrupt, I&#39;ll have to start looking for a cardboard box and a bridge to sleep under.
I&#39;ll probably get hell for this, but most problems (99% I&#39;d say) involves immigrants from Islamic countries.
We have absolutely no problem with Jews, Boeddhists or Hindous, so it&#39;s not that it&#39;s impossible to integrate in our society. Just a lack of will.

So my point of view on this is simple.
Immigrants who fled their country for fear of their life: fine for the duration of the threat.
&#39;Economical&#39; refugees are welcome, as long as they actually TRY to find a job. Any refusal to do so, orany criminal acts performe, and they should go back to where they came from. It can&#39;t be the idea to import social security abusers or criminals from other countries, can it?
Our social security system is collapsing as we speak, because it can no longer pay for all the people we&#39;re taking in.
And if does collapse, what good wil it do for anyone in the future?
Helping others is fine, as long as it&#39;s reasonable.
It&#39;s a bit like denying your children to go to the dentist, because you&#39;d rather give the money to a charity fund. That&#39;s the fastest way to create racism, I think.

Just my 2 p.
Let the flaming begin. :ph34r:

thewizeard
07-10-2003, 05:59 PM
Only if that&#39;s what they want themselves Neil. I am for freedom of choice.

You find me evasive? I try not to use complicated words. I also try to be concise. Once again I am more interested in other peoples opinion including yours. If I start a topic, I don&#39;t feel that I own it. It&#39;s open to all.
You talk of "we" I am not sure to whom you are refering. There have been a few opinions, but not many... yet.

Neil__
07-10-2003, 06:16 PM
edit removed as argument seems to be resolved

thewizeard
07-10-2003, 06:53 PM
I am really not sure what your problem is. Perhaps you could be more explicit? Then I will do my best to answer you.

Neil__
07-10-2003, 07:13 PM
full of opinions all of a sudden.

Neil

4play
07-10-2003, 07:30 PM
I believe that we should kick out all immigrants who have not lived here for at least 10 years. regardless of if they have had kids here.

I live in the London borough of brent which recently published statistics saying that white&#39;s are now in the minority in my area. Can anyone please explain to me why we are taking so many and why they are placing 100,000&#39;s in one of the most expensive places to live in the u.k :angry:

many years ago during the ressesion my family where made homeless. we had to go to are local council to be re-housed. my parents 4 sisters and brother( 8 people) where all told we did not have enough points to be eligable for a house. but of course all the asylum seekers where placed ahead of us so what would you expect. we were told we dont care when we said "we have no where to go".

Living with hundreads of these scum has kinda twistd my view towards them. they claim every benefit and privelage under the sun while we are forced to work to pay for them And do not tell me that aint true i have seen with my own eyes.

Please dont give me that bullshit about we need economic immigrants we have enough unemployed to fill these positions they just need to be forced to work.
cant remeber which foreign politicain said it best but " 3 million less immigrants 3 milions more jobs" get the picture.

And scan these people for fuck sake "we dont want to do hiv tests they might not like it" they are meant to be scared for their lives dipshits a simple blood test should be the least of their problems. Are local hospital has been reporting hundreads of deseases that where up until recently unheard of in the u.k can you guess where they come from <_<

I do admit i have seen geniune cases( they do exsist people) but they should remain in safe countries in there area. why are we taking afghans for christ sake. to escape the taliban why not go to india or another local country.

these people travel across the globe for money people we dont want these spongers we have enough already. kick them out or force them to stay in their local regions.

sorry for the long rant. :( these people piss me off no end so i might have done a tad bit overboard. If you are offended by anything i said im very sorry but tuff these are my opinions and i will stick to them.

If you do believe i am wrong then i would like a few reasons. im more then willing to dicuss this and i have a strong opinon on this topic.

Ron
07-10-2003, 07:45 PM
Although you put it a bit harshly :) , you have a point somehow.
In Belgium, being HIV positive is a reason to be granted asylum.
When a native is infected and has no money for the (expensive) medication, he/she is in bad luck. Health insurance does not pay for it.
But it does for new immigrants........
Can anyone explain that please?
Why is the quality of their life worth more than ours?

thewizeard
07-10-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@10 July 2003 - 19:13
full of opinions all of a sudden.

Neil
I am not an armchair critic, Neil. It is my work.

There are so many people who criticise everything without having any first hand experience. All they seem to do is reflect what they read in they media.

I also feel you should try and keep to the topic. It would help you know.

Nigel.

Rat Faced
07-10-2003, 08:18 PM
nigel123,

You say you work with these refugees/immigrants/asylum seekers.

I have said they are all different, with different problems...and many are genuine that need help.

Why not tell us YOUR opinions, and answer some of the critics that point out that they have more rights and benefits in most EC countries than the people that are actually paying the Taxes to support them.

This is an emotive issue with many people; and i&#39;d like to remind everyone on the Boards rules re: Racism.

Its very easy to be caught out on this type of topic.

Neil__
07-10-2003, 08:20 PM
edit removed

thewizeard
07-10-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@10 July 2003 - 20:18
nigel123,

You say you work with these refugees/immigrants/asylum seekers.

I have said they are all different, with different problems...and many are genuine that need help.

Why not tell us YOUR opinions, and answer some of the critics that point out that they have more rights and benefits in most EC countries than the people that are actually paying the Taxes to support them.

This is an emotive issue with many people; and i&#39;d like to remind everyone on the Boards rules re: Racism.

Its very easy to be caught out on this type of topic.
I will certainly attempt to.

As I said earlier, I live and work in the Netherlands. I do believe in the 1951 Geneva Convention and I agree it&#39;s not perfect. I am going to confine myself with the situation "here" in the Netherlands. The reason is that I do not know how things are organised or regulated in over countries.

When a refugee arrives in the Netherlands he/she has to report to one of a number centers, designated by the goverment for questioning purposes. This is the time when a request for asylum must be made. Most of the applications are rejected and the would be asylum seeker is sent packing within 48 (office) hours. In actual fact all applications are rejected. That is the way the process works. That does not mean that that all asylum seekers have to leave the Netherlands. This is called the " first hearing," Those that the Immigration service believe are genuine cases are then sent to other centers which then decide which area in the Netherlands they will be sent to. These centers are called AZC&#39;s. They will languish there for about three years while a decision is being reached by the justice system. During this period they are not allowed to find work or look for a house. Often they have to share with up to three families, kitchen, bathroom and living room.

I shall hurry on at this point. For the lucky ones who receive a status, then all the rights that every dutch person has, are accorded to them. Unfortunately it does not work that way. They, like every other dutch person who are looking for rented accomadation has to get himself on the housing list. When the asylum seeker gets a house offered to him/her, then and only then is he/she entitled to all the rights.

Ok The asylum seeker has found himself a house and now he is looking for work.
Still he must wait, now he has to go to school and learn the dutch language. He has to take an exam and get a certificate that proves he has masterd the dutch language. Then he can look for work

There are two types of staying permits for asylum seekers in the Netherlands. A permanent one(the best) or a temporary one( not good at all) If you get a temporary one, you could be sent back to your country of origin at any time. Also if you have a temporary permit, any one wanting to employ you, is required by law, to get permission from the goverment. The employer has to prove that he cannot find any dutch citizens to do the job. Well as you can imagine, there are not many employers who are going to go through all that hustle.

I do symphathise with the family of 4play, and I can understand his frustration as he sees asylum seekers getting homes that he feels his family was entitled to. But it&#39;s first come first served and unfortunatly his family seems to have got themselves on the list a little later. (I do not know and that is pure speculation.)

For Neil: I do my work because I believe in it. Many of our clients have lost family and themselves sufferd torture at the hands of their agressors. Things have happened to them which I would not dream of writing down in this Forum.

Edit: a couple of spelling changes

Neil__
07-10-2003, 10:18 PM
what&#39;s this got to do with why you do your job and the war?

Neil.

denis123
07-10-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@10 July 2003 - 22:18
what&#39;s this got to do with why you do your job and the war?

Neil.
I think he just feels sorry for them. Don&#39;t you?

Neil__
07-10-2003, 10:28 PM
edit removed as above

thewizeard
07-10-2003, 10:32 PM
Well I do indeed feel sorry for them and which war are you refering to Neil?

Neil__
07-10-2003, 10:35 PM
edit Removed as argument seems to be resolved

denis123
07-10-2003, 10:37 PM
Do you feel sorry for them, surely you can answer that question?

Ron
07-10-2003, 10:40 PM
Why do so many of them complain about how bad our country is, when they had it so bad in their own? (talking about Belgium here)

A while back, we had a little scandal, concerning the unemployment ofice.
They offered the chance to get your drivers licence for free, but ONLY if you weren&#39;t Belgian.
Native unemployed people had to pay the full price.
A girl I know works there, and she told me that these people complained that the driving test wasn&#39;t performed by an Arab person.
Our government is continuously implementing &#39;positive discrimination&#39; laws and regulations.
They even want to force catholic schools to make Islam part of the lesson package. Catholic schools&#33;&#33;&#33;
Is there an end to what refugees can demand?
Refugees are our guests. They should behave as such.

denis123
07-10-2003, 10:47 PM
I don&#39;t think that&#39;s right Ron, I believe that when you go to a foreign country,"When in Rome do as the römans do"

Ron
07-10-2003, 10:56 PM
I couldn&#39;t agree with you more Denis, but that&#39;s the problem exactly.
Most (not all) immigrants want to enforce their way of life on the natives here.

Extreme right wing parties are on the rise all over Europe. Is that so surprising?Contrary to the Netherlands (who I think are as close to being a rolemodel as can be) refugees in Belgium don&#39;t have to speak the language to get the Belgian identity. How can they even think of integrating like that? How can they find a decent job?
So the government makes all these new laws and regulations to force employers to hire them anyway.
Does that make sense?

denis123
07-10-2003, 11:01 PM
Which of the two languages is the official language in Belgium?

Ron
07-10-2003, 11:07 PM
Belgium has three actually. :)
Dutch (Flemish)
French
an German (minority)

They&#39;re all official languages.
Some people are shouting to make Arab the fourth, but I doubt it will come to that.

denis123
07-10-2003, 11:12 PM
That presents a problem. If Belgium followed the Netherlands, I wonder which language the refugees would have to learn?

Ron
07-10-2003, 11:24 PM
Well, any of them would be good.
Well, depending where you would want to live, I mean.
If you look at Belgium on a map, everything North of Brussels is mainly Dutch (Flemish), everything South of it will be solely French.
The German part (also in the South) is so small it&#39;s almost irrelevant.

Mind you, I was talking about a special kind of immigrants here.
Strangely, all non-Islamic immigrants have no problem with our rules and regulations, or language for that matter.

junkyardking
07-10-2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by 4play@10 July 2003 - 19:30
I believe that we should kick out all immigrants who have not lived here for at least 10 years. regardless of if they have had kids here.

I live in the London borough of brent which recently published statistics saying that white&#39;s are now in the minority in my area. Can anyone please explain to me why we are taking so many and why they are placing 100,000&#39;s in one of the most expensive places to live in the u.k :angry:

many years ago during the ressesion my family where made homeless. we had to go to are local council to be re-housed. my parents 4 sisters and brother( 8 people) where all told we did not have enough points to be eligable for a house. but of course all the asylum seekers where placed ahead of us so what would you expect. we were told we dont care when we said "we have no where to go".

Living with hundreads of these scum has kinda twistd my view towards them. they claim every benefit and privelage under the sun while we are forced to work to pay for them And do not tell me that aint true i have seen with my own eyes.

Please dont give me that bullshit about we need economic immigrants we have enough unemployed to fill these positions they just need to be forced to work.
cant remeber which foreign politicain said it best but " 3 million less immigrants 3 milions more jobs" get the picture.

And scan these people for fuck sake "we dont want to do hiv tests they might not like it" they are meant to be scared for their lives dipshits a simple blood test should be the least of their problems. Are local hospital has been reporting hundreads of deseases that where up until recently unheard of in the u.k can you guess where they come from <_<

I do admit i have seen geniune cases( they do exsist people) but they should remain in safe countries in there area. why are we taking afghans for christ sake. to escape the taliban why not go to india or another local country.

these people travel across the globe for money people we dont want these spongers we have enough already. kick them out or force them to stay in their local regions.

sorry for the long rant. :( these people piss me off no end so i might have done a tad bit overboard. If you are offended by anything i said im very sorry but tuff these are my opinions and i will stick to them.

If you do believe i am wrong then i would like a few reasons. im more then willing to dicuss this and i have a strong opinon on this topic.
First of all to 4play comments I find them a bit ironic considering the fact the British invaded quite a lot of countries in the past bringing with them all the diseases of the day including America and where I am in Australia, but the fact you may have some diseases is more likely to do with a globalised world than a few immigrants coming to the UK, the thing with the UK is that it&#39;s a land of immigrants from all over Europe, the original people who lived in the British isles many thousands of years ago are not the same people who are there now.
But people who pay attention to just skin color are still around.

In Australia we have moved to the worst kind of conditions for refugees, Australia have become cruel and evil under the rule of the conservatives but the camps were created under labor, Australia sends people back to Afghanistan while it&#39;s still manly ruled by warlords the Afghani government has no real power beyond Kabul, Australia is even trying to send people back to East Timor who have been here for ten to twenty years, who sent up business and had families.

Even when a refugee gets a visa it&#39;s only a temporary 3 year one under which there life is in limbo because under it you can’t get a job, so you can’t plan for any future.

The refugee issue is more of a symptom than a problem, the world in the past couple of years has become more nasty to fellow humans, it no borders for money (free trade) but borders of brick walls for people, the issues run deep and it is more about the idea of World governance to solve problems than to selfish nationalistic one&#39;s that we see at the moment.

People complain about refugees but what do we say "send them back", send them to what? There deaths, to a hopeless life.

Until till humans see that’s it to better unite to solve problems than compete against it each other in a nationalistic ideal there will be more refugees and more suffering.

Rat Faced
07-10-2003, 11:32 PM
I do symphathise with the family of 4play, and I can understand his frustration as he sees asylum seekers getting homes that he feels his family was entitled to. But it&#39;s first come first served and unfortunatly his family seems to have got themselves on the list a little later. (I do not know and that is pure speculation.)


Its NOT 1st come, 1st served.

Its a points system.

So many points for Children, so many points for being homeless, overcrowding etc etc

The people with the most points are at the top of the list.

Unfortunately the Asylum Seekers dont need to make points...they just go to the top of the list....in fact its worse.

The councils are supposed to keep 5% of the housing stock free for emergancies..so no matter how many points you have these do not get allocated.

However the asylum seekers DO get these....so even though your at the top of the list, the next house that becomes vacant isnt yours...it replaces the one that was taken months ago by the asylum seeker.

Where i say Asylum Seeker above...also read Refugee.


Immigrants are different though....as they are settling here, they follow the same rules as the population.....except they will always be at the top end of the list as Homeless.

Ron
07-10-2003, 11:40 PM
I personally know a man who had a thriving business some years ago.
Due to a nasty divorce, he lost his business and money, and now lives in a homeless shelter.
He&#39;s 70+ and has to sleep in a dormitory with drunks and hobo&#39;s, although he has paid millions of &#036; over the years. (I&#39;m not exagerating here)
Still, refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants come to Belgium and get housing, gas, electricity, food, clothing, etc., etc. for free.
Where is the justice in that?

Rat Faced
07-10-2003, 11:52 PM
First of all to 4play comments I find them a bit ironic considering the fact the British invaded quite a lot of countries in the past bringing with them all the diseases of the day including America and where I am in Australia


Really? Invaded?

90% of the British Empire was NOT invaded by the British.

They were invaded by the French, Dutch and Spanish then given to the British as compensation after these countries lost wars with the British.

eg New York was originally New Amsterdam, Canada and India were both French, Australia was Dutch....

I agree though that a LOT of countries were invaded by Europeans, bringing Disease and wiping out whole swathes of the natives.

junkyardking
07-11-2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@10 July 2003 - 23:52

First of all to 4play comments I find them a bit ironic considering the fact the British invaded quite a lot of countries in the past bringing with them all the diseases of the day including America and where I am in Australia


Really? Invaded?

90% of the British Empire was NOT invaded by the British.

They were invaded by the French, Dutch and Spanish then given to the British as compensation after these countries lost wars with the British.

eg New York was originally New Amsterdam, Canada and India were both French, Australia was Dutch....

I agree though that a LOT of countries were invaded by Europeans, bringing Disease and wiping out whole swathes of the natives.
Well i know that Australia was never Dutch or given as compensation, there were Dutch who discovered Australia before Britian thats why it had that Dutch name of which i forget, but Australia after invasion was a British colony.

thewizeard
07-11-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@10 July 2003 - 20:20
you seem very evasive of an intelligent debate
I think you only want bigoted ranting not reasoned argument.
you mention peoples media led opinion.
I&#39;m sorry but i&#39;m not going on a racist rant for you or anyone else
why not join your local Nazi party
I think they will have the quotes you&#39;re looking for.

Or am I wrong and why?

Neil
This was one of the reasons why I suggested an adult section for 18+.

Neil__
07-11-2003, 03:50 PM
Edit Removed as argument seems to be resolved

thewizeard
07-11-2003, 04:13 PM
I think that I was probably being to hard on you Neil. I have read again some of your earlier posts. You came up with some thoughts that are relevant.

Many countries do pass the buck as you put it and there are many families spread throughout Europe because their airplane happened to land in for example Portugal and not in Germany. ( you must claim asylum in the first safe country that you arrive in.)

I feel if you show a little more patience with the way I express myself then slowly you will understand my goodwill in this matter.

I am not affiliated to any politic party by the way.

As regards to the problem of regional asylum, Pakistan is overflowing with them likewise Iran. I always wonderd why many Afghans wanted to come to the UK. The social security system is not all that good compared to other Eurpean countries. The health system is tottering so to speak. It must be of course the english language.

There has been much progress in Europe towards a common policy. The major problem I believe is the cost of accomadating? Ok I will leave it there for the time being as I have to do some work. I will check out your reaction if any later.

Nigel

Rat Faced
07-11-2003, 04:26 PM
Well i know that Australia was never Dutch or given as compensation, there were Dutch who discovered Australia before Britian thats why it had that Dutch name of which i forget, but Australia after invasion was a British colony.




Isnt that what i said?

It was Dutch, and we won it off them....not off the Aboriginies (which would have been an invasion).

We never fought over there, we fought over here...Australia was nothing more than a prize in a minor scuffle between 2 European Powers of the time.



Back on topic.....

Any that come through the Channel Tunnel to the UK should be sent back to wherever they came from, as they have broke the rules.

In order to enter the UK this way, they had to have been in France 1st (and possibly a number of other countries before that). The rules clearly state that they have to ask in the 1st EU country that they arrive in.

The stupid thing is, they would get their rights much quicker in somewhere like Belgium, and then they could travil to the UK legally and in comfort on the train, instead of getting run over by the train.

Neil__
07-11-2003, 04:32 PM
Thank you nigel, and I take back my speculations on your motives for your evasiveness.

To answer your question I always feel sorry for anyone who has a need to leave their home for whatever reason.
that doesn&#39;t mean I agree with open ended immigration and refugee policies
I feel that the dutch model is a little too harsh in places and the belgian full of contradictions.
And here in britain. Turmoil. no-one in power seems to have a clue what to do
it&#39;s a sad part of British politics. "If you can&#39;t please everyone do nothing much"

That&#39;s why the thoughts on a united policy
But you have the self interest loggerhead problem then.
with each country trying to get the best for themselves individually

I can see why there is outrage with refugees being given homes before nationals
but what sort of caring society would we be if we gave them sanctuary in our country and then threw them into the gutter
We have a moral responsibility to those to whome we outstretch a caring hand.

I find myself torn between the natural feelings that one has for freinds and countrymen(they should come first) but on the other hand how can I turn my back on someone who is being persecuted for no more reason other than a state of mind
I do not envy you in the work you do but admire the people like you who are prepared to take on such a burden.
I wish I had an answer or anyone for that matter.
I will live in hope because there has to be a better solution than we have now

Neil.

thewizeard
07-11-2003, 05:12 PM
I thank you too Neil.

After reading what you have written I realise that there is still hope. Your words will comfort many.

As we say in Holland, tot ziens, tot horens of tot lezens&#33;&#33;

Nigel

Ron
07-11-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@11 July 2003 - 18:32
I can see why there is outrage with refugees being given homes before nationals
but what sort of caring society would we be if we gave them sanctuary in our country and then threw them into the gutter
We have a moral responsibility to those to whome we outstretch a caring hand.

True. But what kind of country puts it&#39;s own people in the gutter?
And in a lot of cases, we didn&#39;t stretch out a helping hand. It was demanded.
And even then, you get complaints that you&#39;re not helping them enough.


I find myself torn between the natural feelings that one has for freinds and countrymen(they should come first)

You know, according to Belgian law, you are now a racist. ;)
We had a right wing party here that used the slogan "Natives first", and that slogan was forbidden as being racist. :)

Neil__
07-11-2003, 06:38 PM
Nigel
you have me at a partial loss.

tot ziens, tot horens of tot lezens?

see you soon, goodbye or ?

The third part has beaten me, I cannot find the meaning of "tot lezens"

I assume it&#39;s in the same vein so

Bye nigel and later

Neil.

Neil__
07-11-2003, 06:58 PM
Ron
Blame the government for the inadequacies with respect to refugees and the unfairness of the system to the British/Belgians or any nationallity
It&#39;s hardly fair to blame the refugees themselves they have usually suffered enough.
and what is your source for their "demands for more"
or is it demands for fair and non racist treatment that they ask
if so they have that right.

As to the racist reference about Belgium

I am not a member of a right wing party and I&#39;m sure it is only in that context that the phrase is banned

Anyway saying my "feeling for my countrymen should come first" is a far cry from
"foreigners go home" Which I think is closer to the phrase "Natives First" than what I said

So. Am I a belgian racist.
I think not.

Neil

Ron
07-11-2003, 07:58 PM
First of all Neil, I certainly didn&#39;t mean to imply you&#39;re a racist in any way.
If it came across that way, I apologize. It was meant tongue in cheek.
As for the fact that refugees always more, how about their demands to get Arab and Islam part of the obligatory classes in school.
How about the wellfare worker that nearly got stabbed to death (seven times), because the refugee thought he didn&#39;t get enough. (as a surplus to his free housing, gas, electricity, furniture,etc.)
They even think it below their dignity to clean up their own mess.
I know a girl who&#39;s on unemployment, and she has to clean the rooms in a refugee shelter near Antwerp. (or lose her unemployment money)
Those guys even cr*p in the showers, and she has to clean it up. When she&#39;s done, they even check up on her, to see if she did her job well enough, according to them&#33;
How about going ahead with demonstrations, even if they are forbidden by law, destroying everything they come across?
How about still making women wear their veil, even though Belgian law says it&#39;s forbidden to hide your face?
It&#39;s very strange that we only have problems with 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants too. Most of them are born here, have our nationality (as well as their own), but refuse to integrate. They do not recognize our culture, because "Islam is the only right way of living", but it&#39;s those guys that you can see in snackbars during Ramadan. ????
They claim that everyone who isn&#39;t a muslem is a racist.
So I wonder why other cultures/religions don&#39;t have the same problems, living in Western countries?
Could it be that the true racists are the muslems themselves for not accepting any other way of life thantheir own?

You are right in saying that it isn&#39;t the fault of refugees, immigrants or asylum seekers that our government gives them all these benefits. But it becomes a whole different matter when they start demanding them, and calling everyone who doesn&#39;t give them what they want right no, a racist.

Ron
07-11-2003, 08:10 PM
Lol.
I just remember something that kind of describes what I mean.
We have a rather new political party in Belgium, called "AEL" (Arab-European League)
They have a division in the Netherlands too now, btw.
Anyway, one of their first members was this Morrocan guy, who after a while thought the AEL was too extreme, so he joined another party.
All of a sudden, this guy was a racist too&#33;
So even muslems are racist towards muslems?
It&#39;s so ridiculous, it&#39;s funny.

thewizeard
07-11-2003, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@11 July 2003 - 18:38


tot ziens, tot horens of tot lezens?



.....Untill I see you, untill I hear from you or untill I read from you&#33;

(literally translated)

Nigel

Skweeky
07-11-2003, 08:31 PM
........yes, one can tell it&#39;s the Flemish holiday today....

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I don&#39;t entirely agree with Ron (I live in Belgium too). I know there are a lot of gaps in the agreements and that a lot of people don&#39;t get the help they should get. But I honestly don&#39;t see why a foreigner should get less help than a native. Do we actually OWN our country because we happen to live there? That&#39;s not my view....Ron, you make it look like all immigrants get instant help and native inhabitants get zip when needed. That&#39;s not true, it works both ways IMO. When going to Antwerp or Brussels I see more foreign homeless people that native homeless people btw.
I don&#39;t mean to offend anyone ofcourse, this is only my opinion.

I&#39;d like to explain a bit more about those party&#39;s Ron was talking about.
Vlaams Blok(the one with the racist slogan) is a party that is right winged and conservative in a way that is rather disturbing (imo). They do not only want bettr rights for natives, they also want:
-strangers leaving
-women at home
-a curfew at night

These are just a few points of their program. As I recall correctly, it wasn&#39;t the slogan ITSELF that was seen as racist, but it was the slogan and the CONTEXT it was in.

AEL: a party started by Dyab Abou Jahjah. A Libanese citizen who erected a party to strive for more rights for foreigners and especially recognistion of the Arab culture here in Belgium. It is true he doesn&#39;t want to accept our laws and he is too extreme. This party is a group of right winged conservative ARAB people.

I don&#39;t see the difference between Vlaams Blok and AEL here. They&#39;re both giulty to the same &#39;crimes&#39;.



Just my two cents :)

Neil__
07-11-2003, 08:31 PM
Of course I didn&#39;t ron
I just point out how easily things get F***** up when you ban words
And for the racism thing then they should get a grip.

Here in the uk several years ago there was uproar when parents at a predominantly Muslim populated school demanded the hiring of an Urdu speaking teacher.
These weren&#39;t refugee kids but immigrants and my answer was clear.
If you chose to live here (and are not forced by circumstance) then learn the language and don&#39;t complain if your kids don&#39;t speak english and therefore can&#39;t learn

If you need help HIRE your own bloody teacher.

Ask by all means and MAYBE something can be arranged, Education for all and that
but what a nerve to demand a urdu speaker as you won&#39;t get one.My view is if you don&#39;t like it go away.

Refugees on the other hand have a right to expect education in what it takes to be British.

Neil

Neil__
07-11-2003, 08:34 PM
Skweeky

Sounds like there&#39;s a bunch of nutters both sides of the arguement.

Neil

Neil__
07-11-2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by nigel123+11 July 2003 - 21:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nigel123 @ 11 July 2003 - 21:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neil__@11 July 2003 - 18:38


tot ziens, tot horens of tot lezens?



.....Untill I see you, untill I hear from you or untill I read from you&#33;

(literally translated)

Nigel [/b][/quote]



Cheers nigel

I wasn&#39;t even close so I&#39;ll blame the net.

Neil

Skweeky
07-11-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@11 July 2003 - 21:34
Skweeky

Sounds like there&#39;s a bunch of nutters both sides of the arguement.

Neil
exactly

Ron
07-11-2003, 08:50 PM
Sorry Skweeky, but I think you&#39;re misled somewhere/somehow.
As far as I know, there are NO homeless foreigners in Belgium.
All they have to do, is go to a wellfare office, and they get help.
I know a girl in Mechelen, who receives €450 a month from wellfare, while my brother rented an appartment to a refugee from Kosovo, who received almost €700, while his bills were paid by the wellfare office.
(This man bought his own house after being in Belgium ONE year, btw)
It&#39;s not because you see them begging on the streets, that they have no home.
I used to live above a Romanian family that did that. The father dropped his wife and kids off with his Mercedes every day&#33;&#33; (his kids were beaten if they didn&#39;t collect enough, btw). Not generalizing here, just my personal experience.

Also, I wasn&#39;t propagizing the Vlaams Blok here. Of course they are not the solution to the problem. It&#39;s just that I think it&#39;s plain stupid to forbid a slogan like that. Censorship is wrong. Where does it lead to? Our government is slowly, systematically gagging us. How long until we no longer have the right to critize
Neil: in Belgium, everyone who enters the country is given the opportunity to learn Dutch, they just refuse, that&#39;s all.
There was some talk about forcing them, by cutting their wellfare check if they didn&#39;t. The idea behind it, was if they didn&#39;t learn Dutch, they wouldn&#39;t have a chance on getting a job, thus stayying unemployed indefinately.
Guess where those plans ended up.....

Skweeky
07-11-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Ron@11 July 2003 - 21:50
Sorry Skweeky, but I think you&#39;re misled somewhere/somehow.
As far as I know, there are NO homeless foreigners in Belgium.
All they have to do, is go to a wellfare office, and they get help.

Do you ever walk around in the neighbourhood of Brussel Noord or Etterbeek/Schaarbeek at night?



As I said, I know there are a lot of problems, I just don&#39;t think that all foreigners get the help they need, just as not all belgians get the help they need.
I realize the system isn&#39;t perfect, not at all, but it&#39;s a but onesided to state that &#39;they&#39; get more than &#39;us&#39; all the time. :)

funny_bunny
07-11-2003, 08:56 PM
Hi, folks. You have certainly covered some ground with this topic&#33;
What I don&#39;t think you have done is clearly stated that there are two types of Asylum Seekers.
Economic Migrants And Political Refugees.
The first just want to find a better life; the second want to stay alive. It&#39;s an important difference in terms of International Law.
No Country has the right to "close the door" on Political Refugees.
All Countries can tell Economic Migrants to go home.
The problem is sometimes trying to tell the difference.
Because sometimes, there isn,t one&#33;

Neil__
07-11-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@10 July 2003 - 15:34
When it comes to Financial refugees then thats what international aid is for
and we can&#39;t take them in.

We could end up just as poor as they were and that isn&#39;t assylum
that&#39;s stupidity.


Neil



funny_bunny

I mentioned it in passing but it needs to be mentioned again.

Neil

funny_bunny
07-11-2003, 09:17 PM
Thanks, Neil. The point I am trying to make is that the word &#39;Refugee&#39; has special meaning in Law. To seek refuge, to be sheltered from harm. These people don&#39;t have to fulfill any pre-requisites to be allowed in to any country to whom they apply and they cannot be denied or returned.
Economic Migrants are looking for work, that they cannot find in their own country, in order to improve their quality of life.
They must, therefore fulfill one important requirement. The qualifications and/or experience to fulfill a job requirement. If they can&#39;t do that, then they can be told; Go Home&#33;
And especialyy in those countries that already have unemployment problems.

Neil__
07-11-2003, 09:28 PM
funny bunny
Exactly

The refuge we give is from tyrany not poverty.
It&#39;s unfortunate that people are starving to death and we could save their lives by taking them in, but how can we do that without plunging our own countries into poverty. How does that help the ecconomic "Refugees/ Migrants"
They would come to the most prosperous countries in their millions and now it&#39;s us that are starving because it&#39;s now us that have a cronic population crisis.

Sorry but it cannot be done

the possible answer to this problem is similar to the EEC model
less advanced economies are invested in and raised to a minimum standard for the greater good and economic power of a larger Europe if we apply this to the planet then maybe we can save these countries from self/natural destruction.

Neil.

P.S. Isn&#39;t it the case that if we spent 14 days of global armaments spending in the right areas then we could end starvation forever.

Worth thinking about next time you vote.

Ron
07-11-2003, 09:41 PM
Anyone hear about the TV commercial that the Albanian GOVERNMENT broadcasted some two years ago?
They were telling their citizens to go to Belgium, because they would get money there.
So a lot of them came, all &#39;political refugees&#39;.
At some point, our government decided to repatriate about 50 of them.
Albania refused to take them back, unless Belgium paid for their support in Albania, what according to some journalist last week, is still the case.
Are we responsible for the support of the rest of the world?

Neil__
07-11-2003, 09:47 PM
Ron

Thats Blackmail pure and simple nothing more
How does Albania expect the world to take it seriously when it resorts to that behaviour.
And were not responsible for the support of the world but we do have a moral responsibility to try and help these countries out of a hole.

Two different things altogether.

Neil

Ron
07-11-2003, 10:09 PM
Maybe so Neil, but help them at what cost?
Any?
Social security systems are crumbling all over Europe under the weight of the flood of (economical)refugees. Next year, there will be 12 countries added to the EEC.
Turkey is on the list after that.
Turkey has 65 million people with no economical future.
As you said, we will be sucked down until we drown, and when that happens even legit refugees won&#39;t have a place to turn to.
The way I see it, refugees are entitled to get help from us for the duration of the threat. After that, they - just like the economical &#39;refugees&#39; - should have to prove they have some added value for this country in order to be allowed to stay.
But then we&#39;ll probably be accused of stealing talents from countries that they so badly need.

Neil__
07-11-2003, 10:17 PM
Ron as always we find ourselves in a no win situation here in the west
do nothing and your a bastard
Do something and you haven&#39;t appreciated the scale of the problem and should do more.
Like I said we have to help but not at our own economic downfall.
we cannot allow the world to become an average we have to try and encourage the the lowest up to our level.

Does that mean capitalism for all. well if it&#39;s that or starve then I&#39;d rather work for Mcdonnalds than scavenge a refuse tip.

Neil.

Ron
07-11-2003, 10:32 PM
Maybe the help we&#39;re giving to economical refugees, IS the problem?


Wasn&#39;t there a saying like: Don&#39;t give a man a fish, give him a fishing rod, and teach him how to fish", or something?

Neil__
07-11-2003, 10:46 PM
exactly ron
Give people bricks and mortar and a teacher then they have a school.
the teacher can then train his/her replacement then move on to the next
before you know it you have an education system.

Neil

thewizeard
07-13-2003, 08:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put an end to their wandering

Europe should do more to support refugees in their regions of origin

Ruud Lubbers
Friday June 20, 2003
The Guardian

Asylum has become a hot political topic in some European countries. There are two reasons for this. First, there are genuine concerns about the way the system is being managed, about the role of people smugglers, and about those who misuse the system by falsely portraying themselves as asylum seekers. These factors feed off each other.
Second, there is another abusive group at work - including some politicians, pressure groups and newspaper editors - who are wilfully distorting the issue. I am appalled at the exaggerations, statistical manipulation and scaremongering that have proliferated recently. This is a dangerous path for society to go down. As a former prime minister, I know how hard it is to draw up far-sighted policy when you are buffeted by a political whirlwind whipped up by distortion and exaggeration.

The UNHCR, the UN refugee agency that I head, is proposing a three-pronged approach to improve the global asylum system. One prong is devoted to the regions from which refugees originate; one is geared to the gradual transformation of the EU into a single asylum space; and one to sharpening individual states&#39; domestic asylum systems.

This is not a menu of options but an organic whole. Unilateral actions by a single state, or even a small club of states, will not bear fruit unless they are acceptable to other countries, particularly developing countries that host huge refugee populations, sometimes for decades. These countries will need to be convinced that the richer states will share the economic, social and political burdens imposed by large movements of refugees. If they feel the rich states are only interested in passing the buck back to them, they will not cooperate.

The amount spent on supporting refugees in their regions of origin is woefully inadequate. Little wonder that refugees - genuine refugees - lose hope and head towards Europe. Their original hosts, with inadequate financial support, are unlikely to encourage them to stay. Nor are they likely to welcome them back just because Europe doesn&#39;t want them either.

So, under the "regional prong", the UNHCR is proposing a more coherent, wide-ranging effort by donor states to support refugees in their host countries. But all this requires development assistance that would increase the self-reliance of refugees and benefit the countries that host them, thereby reducing the pressures to seek asylum farther afield. The regional prong would include special arrangements tailored for specific refugee groups, an initiative I call "Convention Plus" since it builds on and complements the 1951 refugee convention.

Under the "EU prong", the UNHCR proposes separating out groups that are misusing the system, namely asylum seekers from countries that produce hardly any genuine refugees. These asylum seekers would be sent to one or more reception centres somewhere within the EU, where their claims would be rapidly examined by joint EU teams. Those judged not to have any sort of refugee claim would be sent straight home.

The limited number of recognised refugees among them would be shared between the EU states. There should be a strict time limit for the entire process. Readmission agreements between the EU and the rejected asylum seekers&#39; home countries must be reached in advance so that people are not detained for months or years simply because they cannot be deported.

It is essential that such an initiative takes place within the EU&#39;s borders. Reception centres then would be bound by EU legal standards. That is important not only to safeguard the human rights of people being assessed but also because it would reduce the legal obstacles states would face if the centres were located outside the EU. The accusation of burden-shifting would not arise.

If the regional and EU prongs of this approach are implemented effectively, we will quickly see benefits within each EU state&#39;s domestic asylum system. Nevertheless, efforts need to continue in parallel to streamline domestic systems - to make them faster, fairer and more efficient.

I am pleased that these proposals have found an echo in a recent communication published by the European Commission at the request of member states. The dialogue is continuing at the EU summit in Thessaloniki. We should not miss this opportunity to put in place a more balanced and equitable approach that safeguards the protection of refugees, promotes solutions and restores public confidence in asylum systems. This is one of the most urgent policy challenges confronting Europe today.

· Ruud Lubbers is the UN high commissioner for refugees

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what Ruud has to say.

Neil__
07-13-2003, 08:46 PM
Finally someone has a direction that might yeald a solution that is in the interests of the reugees. Abd being a man of such influence he has a better chance than most of getting it done
Deal with the cause of the exodus at it&#39;s source.

Neil.

4play
07-13-2003, 09:21 PM
I am still left wondering why do we not send back all the illegal&#39;s that arrived in britain from france which is a safe country.

They will then reject them and then fuck it. they are out of or country what do we care.

I have no problem with this i am not alone people. The human species has never though about the future. Why else would we kill are planet like we do and have no regard for it. ;)

p.s
we do have a points system so we where on the waiting list for housing for 6 years before we found a home. while illegals wait about 24 hours. anyone else spot why i hate these people. :angry:

4play
07-13-2003, 09:36 PM
@darkblizzard sorry mate your a bit of a nutter. ;)

If black people do not mind us living in africa why are white farm owner being thrown out in zimbabwe. Why do we not do the same? well because we was mean bastards to create the largest empire on earth but well we have a pussy for a leader now. :angry:

thewizeard
07-13-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by 4play@13 July 2003 - 21:21


p.s
we do have a points system so we where on the waiting list for housing for 6 years before we found a home. while illegals wait about 24 hours. anyone else spot why i hate these people. :angry:
Hello 4play,

I feel you are confusing the refugee with the system.

Surely you mean to say you are against a system that is obviously not working as it was meant to?

Nigel

4play
07-13-2003, 09:42 PM
Hello 4play,

I feel you are confusing the refugee with the system.

Surely you mean to say you are against a system that is obviously not working as it was meant to?

Nigel

Nope im not confused. What i mean to say is that im pissed off at the scum that abuse the system. it does not work because it never will so kill it off now.

I do not care if people have to suffer because at the end of the day i still get to eat my mc donalds and get pissed so screw them.

many will say that is a bad attitude but hey welcome to the real world people.

thewizeard
07-13-2003, 09:47 PM
Ok then, you mentioned those who abuse the system. What do you feel about genuine requests for asylum?

4play
07-13-2003, 09:54 PM
Ok then, you mentioned those who abuse the system. What do you feel about genuine requests for asylum?

I have no sympathy for these people. Sorry to say it but i have seen too much abuse to care about genuine people. if they are genuine they would only go as far as they needed to go to escape. i do not see any local countries to England that should have refuges let alone britain.

Rat Faced
07-13-2003, 10:03 PM
Just out of interest, do you class immigrants the same?

Remember these are people that are taking British Citizenship and are living under the same rules as yourself for work/benefits, they get no "privelages" except English Class&#39;s if they dont speak the language.



If you have nothing against these people...how do YOU tell them apart?



If you dont class them as different, then I feel your motivation has crossed to Racism rather than logic.

thewizeard
07-13-2003, 10:13 PM
I am sorry you feel so bitter.

You probably read the quote that I posted from Ruud Lubbers. If you didn&#39;t I ask you to read it.

They are working to put an end to the abuse. Untill a new European convention is passed, it will no doubt continue.

4play
07-13-2003, 10:13 PM
Just out of interest, do you class immigrants the same?

Remember these are people that are taking British Citizenship and are living under the same rules as yourself for work/benefits, they get no "privelages" except English Class&#39;s if they dont speak the language.



If you have nothing against these people...how do YOU tell them apart?



If you dont class them as different, then I feel your motivation has crossed to Racism rather than logic.


I do class immigrants as the same. these people do get privelages. Try a £3000 cheque to set themselfs up in this country for a start. why not give this to real british citizens to pay for their university or something alone those lines :angry:

edit:

I am sorry you feel so bitter.

You probably read the quote that I posted from Ruud Lubbers. If you didn&#39;t I ask you to read it.

They are working to put an end to the abuse. Untill a new European convention is passed, it will no doubt continue

sorry to say it but i do not belive that a european policy will resolve this issue. a body of unelected representatives are nthing less than a joke to me.

Rat Faced
07-13-2003, 10:28 PM
I do class immigrants as the same. these people do get privelages. Try a £3000 cheque to set themselfs up in this country for a start. why not give this to real british citizens to pay for their university or something alone those lines


I think you&#39;ll find that is for "Highly Skilled" workers only (eg Nurses/Teachers) and is also availabe to any UK citizens if they take up the same occupations....especially Teachers.

The reason i single out Teachers is that its a "Resettlement" Grant if you have to move house to take up the occupation. With Teachers you get a Grant to go to University for your Teaching Certificate, whether or not you have to move house...(there are Shortages Nationwide, so its assumed you can work locally)

£3000 is not a lot to move from North of England/Scotland to the South, considering the huge difference in Property prices. I doubt it makes much difference at all coming from a poor country...probably the deposit on a Rented flat.


Edited: Last 2 paragraphs added

4play
07-13-2003, 10:34 PM
does cab driver fall into that Category. well they get that £3000 any way mate.

do not believe the lies that politicians tell you. these people Regularly rig the figures for immigrants and you believe them about how much they get.

I have seen, talked and argued with these people for the past 10 years and all of them say how easy it is to get benefits.

edit: dope did not make sense.

junkyardking
07-14-2003, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 July 2003 - 16:26

Well i know that Australia was never Dutch or given as compensation, there were Dutch who discovered Australia before Britian thats why it had that Dutch name of which i forget, but Australia after invasion was a British colony.




Isnt that what i said?

It was Dutch, and we won it off them....not off the Aboriginies (which would have been an invasion).

We never fought over there, we fought over here...Australia was nothing more than a prize in a minor scuffle between 2 European Powers of the time.

To my knowledge there was no fighting for Australia of any kind, the Dutch simply named it and that was about that, they considered it to harsh to support large populations, the Dutch never made any real claim to sovereignty over Australia and never set up any colony, so in basic sense the British had it first before any of the european powers.


But anyway back to topic.


Refugees will continue to exsist, while they suffer under regimes and while they dont have equal rights, priviliges,freedoms and material wealth.

The only real way to solve it is to have equality on all levels, all over the Earth but wither that will happen will be for history not written yet.

MagicNakor
07-14-2003, 05:01 AM
The only way that would happen would&#39;ve been if the Communist International had succeeded. And, although it&#39;s an excellent ideology, it can never work in practice.

:ninja:

Ron
07-14-2003, 12:44 PM
From what I&#39;ve read, Ruud Lubbers seems to be an idealist.
Sorry to say that idealism and realism are far apart from each other.
Sending back refugees that enter our country seems to be one of the biggest problems. Only a very small part of them get put back on a plane. Most of them simply get a piece of paper that tells them to get out of the country in the next three days.
For those who get put on a plane: they can&#39;t be forced. If they refuse to get on, police cannot force them.
For those who get the &#39;eviction&#39; notice: it also serves as a proof of presence. If a person with that paper can manage to stay in this country for three years, he/she has a claim to our citizenship&#33;&#33; The same paper that tells them to go, also serves as a legit document for admittance. How f*cked up is that?
So no need to tell that most of those people simply &#39;disappear&#39; for a few years, vanish in the underworld, and pop up three years later ith a claim to our citizenship, which is always granted. But what have they lived off for three years?

All over the world, (and that goes for us, &#39;civilized&#39; countries as well) the good have to pay for the bad. It&#39;s a sad reality that everywhere refugees come, crime rises. Nobody in Belgium wants a refugee center in their town, because people don&#39;t feel safe anymore. Well, "feel safe" is an eufemism here. They AREN&#39;T safe anymore, pure and simple. :)
We have a lot of problems here with economical refugees and/or immigrants from Northern Africa. Especially from Morocco and Turkey. I&#39;ve been to Turkey on a holiday twice, and the difference between the people here and there is astonishing&#33;
You can safely walk the streets at night in Turkey&#33;&#33; Imagine that. People are kind and friendly. (well, they were when I was there) They have about two children per family. (must be around 7 or 8 here)
So I talked to some people I met there, and they told me that the mostpart of the people we get here in Belgium, are the people they didn&#39;t want in Turkey either. Mind the "mostpart" bit, they&#39;re not all bad, just most.
So the reality of things is that they abuse our system, because we let them. Hell, we sometimes encourage them even.
Stop the abuse, and you might have a chance of making it work. Stopping the abuse will stop refugees coming in in their big numbers. It will make people smugglers look for another way of income.

Then, there&#39;s also the snakepit of religion. While different cultures can live together perfectly (IMHO), different religions cannot. Don&#39;t kid yourself saying they can. Take a look at the world. Religion is the bigggest cause of wars at the moment. Even subdivisions of a certain religion fight each other. So my opinion is that if people come in here, they have a right to practise their religion in private, but have no right to try and change our communities into what they think they should be like. I have no intention of getting on my knees and praying to Mekka every day. But the problem is that the Islam is a very aggressive religion. Islam doesn&#39;t recognize any other religion. The imams (religious leaders) should be (are) a rolemodel for their community, but they refuse to integrate , so why would their followers? For example, we have an imam in Mechelen (and skweeky should know this) who has been living in Belgium for twenty years now. Still, he can&#39;t speak one word of Dutch. (or won&#39;t) What kind of example is that?
And yes, I&#39;m aware of the atrocities the Christian church did in the past, but that&#39;s exactly what it was: the past. Since then, the world has changed. We have advanced to a higher level of science. We have nuclear bombs now. What happens if some idiot wants to become a martyr and blows himself up with one of those?
I&#39;ll probably be getting responses that say that Islam isn&#39;t aggressive, it&#39;s just extremists that are. Well, I don&#39;t agree. I know several people that should be muslems, but they don&#39;t give a f*ck about religion. Those are the guys I can live with. No problem there. But once they are practising their religion, muslims become extreme. ( a few exceptions to the rule do exist however)

Again, I cannot but wonder why we don&#39;t have problems with Bouddhists or Hindous.....

thewizeard
07-14-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Ron@14 July 2003 - 12:44


Again, I cannot but wonder why we don&#39;t have problems with Bouddhists or Hindous.....
Hello Ron,

I believe that there is a Tibetan Boedhhist center in Schoten. If you have some time, why not visit it - you will then find out.

Buddhist Union of Belgium
L&#39;Union Bouddhique Belge a.s.b.l /
Boeddhistische Unie van België v.z.w. regroupe
Siège social / Zetel
Frans Goetghebeur, Président
Kruispadstraat 33 - 2900 Schoten
Tel: 03 685 09 19, Fax: 03 685 09 91
Email: [email protected]
Web site: www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Fuji/2753/

Nigel

Ron
07-14-2003, 04:45 PM
LOL.
Thank you Nigel, but I already know a lot of Bouddhists.
Well, I know a lot of Chinese people. I just assume they&#39;re Bouddhists actually.
The reason they don&#39;t cause problems, must be the fact that they stick to themselves mostly. They don&#39;t try to force their religion on us. Neither do the Hindous, AFAIK.
Not aggressively anyway.
If it weren&#39;t for religion, the world would be a peaceful place.
And if weren&#39;t for ugly people, it would be a beautiful one too. :lol:

Rat Faced
07-14-2003, 04:51 PM
(Ron @ 14 July 2003 - 12:44)



Again, I cannot but wonder why we don&#39;t have problems with Bouddhists or Hindous.....


Because they have wholey different beliefs, rather than a number of shared?

Go back far enough and Muslems, Jews and Christians were all the same religion, and the basic, grassroots beliefs reflect this.

Maybe its the Differences in a similar religion that rubs the fanatics up the wrong way.

I disagree though, as you knew i would, about Islam being more "extreme" than the other 2.

Christians also have there Right Wing fanatics (look at the Bible Belt of USA, and how religion has a huge effect on Politics there).

There are sects of the Jewish faith that are fanatical enough to not even acknowledge other Jews as Jews...



I maintain that the perceived "extremism" and violence attributed to Islam is a cultural thing as much as a Religious one.

The vast majority of extremists come from countries where life is cheap..and they reflect that.


When the Western Countries (European/Christian) were in that situation..THEY were violent...(eg Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Vlad the Impaler, Catholic/Protestant problems a few hundred years ago....the list could go on)


I&#39;ll re-state my position:

1/ Asylum Seekers/Refugees:

If they can get to UK without going through any other safe country 1st, then fine...we help them. If they can pass through other safe countries without asking there 1st...then they are taking the piss. In both cases, the help is short term...NOT an invitation to rip the country off for the next 20 years, and if they cause trouble, then they should be sent right back where they came from...Tough.


2/ Immigrants.

Wholley different ballgame.

If they want to come to the UK and become UK citizens, with the same rights and resonsibilities as other UK citizens. If they want to integrate and contribute to the culture here...(not import theirs and stick with it, refusing to learn the language or integrate) then I welcome them with open arms.

Ron
07-14-2003, 05:24 PM
Well, I haven&#39;t seen any racial killings between Jews yet. And there a lot of them in Antwerp. Jews not recognizing other Jews isn&#39;t a problem for me. I can safely walk through the Jewish part of Antwerp at night, as long as there aren&#39;t any North Africans around.
Your remark that they come from places where life is cheap, doesn&#39;t quite cut it.
Turkey may not be the most democratic place on Earth, but people aren&#39;t exactly killed on the streets there either. Neither are they in Morocco....
Life is a lot cheaper in China and India, I think. Still, those people are a lot more peacufull and willing to integrate/assimilate.

Also, I did say that Christianity WAS violent in the past. But muslems are living in the same time we are, no? In Algeria, satellite dishes are forbidden, because the (Islamic) government doesn&#39;t want the people to get objective (non-Islamic) news.
In Pakistan, the internet providers have been taken down to prevent people from seeing porn. (sic)
That&#39;s just in the poor world you say?
Well, in Belgium muslem women are still forced to marry a man from the homecountry.
Women are forced to have their clitoris removed, and their vagina gets sewn to provide a tighter feeling for the man.
This gets done by doctors, imported from the homecountry, becase they KNOW it&#39;s forbidden. These people DO live in a Western country. They DO have TV, a car, a refrigerator, a.s.o. They do NOT live in the Middle ages.

I do fully agree with your last two points however. :)
Just one small note.
If people have to stay in the first safe country, that would pretty much exclude Great Brittain, wouldn&#39;t it? ;)
Well, Belgium as well, I suppose.

thewizeard
07-14-2003, 05:27 PM
Rat-faced:

I can go along with your second point Rat-Faced. I have on the first point a problem.
Arriving in Europe one has to claim asylum in the first country one enters as you pointed out. The problem arises when members of ones family are residing in another European country. The result is long term seperation from ones loved ones.

Ron: I felt tempted to tell you about the 4 keys of Buddha and the 4 closely related truths of the "deeply realized." Unfortunately it&#39;s way off topic&#33;

Ron
07-14-2003, 05:40 PM
Nigel, if the family was living in another country, they could move to be close to their relative, no?
Besides, that would only happen in the period of the transition. After a while, everyone entering Europe from a certain place would be going to the same country, so the problem would be solved.

4play
07-14-2003, 05:50 PM
The problem arises when members of ones family are residing in another European country.

Why would the family be split up if they remained in the same region. ;)

nice point rat faced but what will happens when everone claims Immigration status and then partitions are courts saing they get no benefits which is against their humans rights.

there is no easy way to stop the abuse so until we can find a universal policy then we should not accept anymore immigrants or asyulum seekers and return all those who&#39;s countries have now become safe.

another point is that these people do not have to be loyal to are queen. many have fought against this country but still claim asylum here. we should execute these people just for the damn cheek of doing this.

MagicNakor
07-14-2003, 07:19 PM
I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve seen the word "immigrant" be so misused for quite some time.

You cannot "claim" immigrant status. It&#39;s granted to you after jumping through a number of hoops, and spending an obscene amount of money. I know. I&#39;ve been through it.

Oddly enough, not all immigrants come from Asia or the Middle East. Although you wouldn&#39;t know it by reading this thread.

I&#39;m not going to touch the religion aspect here yet; I have to run to the dentist. <_<

:ninja:

Ron
07-14-2003, 07:51 PM
You should have come to Belgium then.
Over here, politicians jump through hoops for you, and you even get paid. <_<

Rat Faced
07-14-2003, 07:55 PM
MagicNakor,

I know the rules on immigration, and how hard (except for certain professions, and countries) it is to come to the UK to live....

However, its BECAUSE they are willing to jump through hoops to BE BRITISH that i&#39;d welcome them.

Personally, I dont care if they are Black, White or pink with Blue spots....if they are willing to go through the immigration route, they are welcome in my book.


I think UK Asylum policy is unfair...such as the "White List", however i&#39;m trying to remove the immigration issue from the other two ie: Asylum/Refugee. These two are a wholey different problem.


Nigel123,

Under the EU proposed rules, there would be no problem.

Every country would be following the same rules, and once given asylum/refugee status are "placed" in EU countries....THIS is the point where "family" should be brought in, when deciding where they go.


Ron,

We get many refugees/asylum seekers that arrive in the UK 1st...we are an Island and we have airplanes.

However the ones that hit the news are the ones being smuggled in from various mainland Europe Countries (so they should have claimed THERE...they broke the rules, throw &#39;em out), and the ones coming through the Channel Tunnel.....from France (again...they broke the rules, throw &#39;em out).


This may seem harsh, but about 25% of the worlds population can claim British Citizenship if they really wanted it (and the rest could try through immigration)......we&#39;re only a small Island.

Ron
07-14-2003, 08:08 PM
R_F, what is "the white list"?

Rat Faced
07-14-2003, 08:19 PM
Uk Immigration and related (http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/infocentre/asylumlaw/legis_overview.htm)

Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 introdused it... there is a PDF download on this webpage giving more details

MagicNakor
07-15-2003, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@14 July 2003 - 20:55
...however i&#39;m trying to remove the immigration issue from the other two ie: Asylum/Refugee. These two are a wholey different problem...
Indeed. My post wasn&#39;t really directed at you RF. Just those who were, for some reason, confusing the immigration system with the refugee system.

:ninja:

junkyardking
07-15-2003, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Ron@14 July 2003 - 17:24

Turkey may not be the most democratic place on Earth, but people aren&#39;t exactly killed on the streets there either. Neither are they in Morocco....
Life is a lot cheaper in China and India, I think. Still, those people are a lot more peacufull and willing to integrate/assimilate.

I think life is cheap is more than just if a person is killed or not, it also extends to things like employment and those countries people are really poor, if I was in there situation I would do the same and break as many laws as required to get my family to a better country.

I think using China and India are poor comparisons and in this instance are incorrect, China is more peaceful because of the repressive regime they have,
India is hardly peaceful or tolerate they have been swepted up in fascist Hindu Nationalism ever since Gandhi’s death with it coming more to the fore lately,
People in India of Sheik or Muslim belief have been massacred with the police content to sit on the side lines with political heads encouraging it, this doesn’t mean they haven’t responded with the same in kind, but the Nationalistic Hindu&#39;s tend to be the provocateurs.

The world has gotten far more selfish and hateful of late, What I notice is that most people complaining about refuges are people from Europe who have benefited from the abuse and repression by there governments ect of many peoples across the world for at least the past 400 to 500 years if not more and it&#39;s fitting that they carry the burden of the poor & suffering from what they have sowed.
You reap what you sow.

But while we live on one planet, we are divided as ever and sending people back to poverty and war will never solve the problem but sitting here complaining wont either.
:mellow:

Ron
07-15-2003, 05:59 AM
junkyardking:
I would break EVERY possible law and then some to get my loved ones to safety.
No argument there. But I would stop breaking laws if they were safe. I ould be grateful to find a place where my children could grow up in safety. I would NOT jeopardize that safety by abusing the system of my hosts.

As for India and China: if you would have read carefully, you would have seen that I said that life was cheap in those countries. That&#39;s why it&#39;s strange that those people are so peaceful HERE.
Earlier in this thread, someone said that the problems could occur because life was cheap in the country of origin of the refugees/asylum seekers/immigrants.
I didn&#39;t think that was a valid argument for the reasons I stated.

thewizeard
07-15-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by junkyardking@15 July 2003 - 05:47


But while we live on one planet, we are divided as ever and sending people back to poverty and war will never solve the problem but sitting here complaining wont either.
:mellow:
Hello Junkyardking:

You can do something about it though&#33;

Join your local refugee helpers council&#33;

Nigel

ilw
07-16-2003, 11:03 AM
theres an excellent article from the BBC website here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3067869.stm) and apparently there is going to be a 5 part series on asylum

echidna
07-23-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 July 2003 - 09:52
Really? Invaded?

90% of the British Empire was NOT invaded by the British.

They were invaded by the French, Dutch and Spanish then given to the British as compensation after these countries lost wars with the British.

eg New York was originally New Amsterdam, Canada and India were both French, Australia was Dutch....

I agree though that a LOT of countries were invaded by Europeans, bringing Disease and wiping out whole swathes of the natives...It was Dutch, and we won it off them....not off the Aborigines (which would have been an invasion).

We never fought over there, we fought over here...Australia was nothing more than a prize in a minor scuffle between 2 European Powers of the time.
Rat your right on the money with most things [thanks for the succinct explanation of the british system],
but, just a couple of points re. australia [&#39;cause you&#39;re way off the mark on this one]

no dutch colony ever existed in what is now called australia, some dutch maps exist which name the landmass New Holland, but only about two dutch ships landed in western australia and were so scared they sailed on

there was an english invasion and then genocide here [which continues with local masters] :: english invasion also took place in new zealand

there was a guerrilla front just 30km north of sydney which took the red coats 60 years to break [and hardly any australians even know about it]

the red coats were fighting the aora koori nation [aboriginals if you like] not dutch not french

also speaking of another land invaded by the english and displaced people, huge numbers of irish dissidents were transported here in colonial times

to say that the british never fought in australia is as offencive as denying the nazi holocaust [but i assume that it is symptomatic of ignorance rather than any malicious revisionism]
englishmen spilt an awful deal of blood in my country [and continue to do their best to forget it]

the closest thing to a scuffle between two european powers here was when a french ship turned up to find the british already here [and left after about 40 days of hanging out amicably with the british invaders]

to the topic;

as someone who born in a country made up of thousands of refugees i am ashamed at the recent policies on asylum seekers here
the australian government are nothing short of fascists

i often find i like immigrants/refugees better than locals as they appreciate this place more than people who are born into it
i have extolled the virtues of migrants cooking before and will again here, even if you can&#39;t speak with someone you can eat with them [you&#39;ll probably get a great meal]

i believe that all help should be rendered that reasonably can be, and for most of us in the developed world there is usually more that can be done. my government now even refuses to abide by the law of the sea due to refugee xenophobia, and we&#39;re on an island&#33;

it takes a lot to make someone leave their homeland, refugees are rarely opportunists, and i believe that the rich places of the world should help them and the people they left behind far more than we do. [the military budgets spent(wasted) failing to catching saddam could have helped a lot of people, for a start]

Neil__
07-23-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by 4play@10 July 2003 - 20:30
I believe that we should kick out all immigrants who have not lived here for at least 10 years. regardless of if they have had kids here.




Why 10 years. why not 100

If that were the case then my fiancee would be thrown out.
Her family came over from Italy in WW2 and the men fought with the british army.They loved Wales and decided to stay after the war.
they were welcome and treated as heroes.they have all worked hard and some have become very successful.

Would you throw her out because her family were refugee&#39;s?
do you concider her family "SCUM"?
I don&#39;t understand why your so intimidated by these people.
Is it you feel you cannot compete?
Or is this hatred just a symptom of your failure to achieve your own ambitions.

Neil.

lynx
07-23-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@23 July 2003 - 17:01
Why 10 years. why not 100

If that were the case then my fiancee would be thrown out.

Nice one there Neil.

I&#39;m not commenting whether you or 4play is right, but you can&#39;t move the goalposts and then object to someone having scored where the goals were before you moved them.

He said 10 years, not 100, so comment on 10 years please.

Neil__
07-23-2003, 07:23 PM
I thought I already did.
But to clarify.
It&#39;s one of the stupidest things I&#39;ve heard a purportedly Intelligent man say in a very long time. (Bush excluded)
And together with the rest of his racism makes a very good case for a program of education in order to explain basic human rights to the few who refuse to understand.

Neil.

Rat Faced
07-23-2003, 07:49 PM
Rat your right on the money with most things [thanks for the succinct explanation of the british system],
but, just a couple of points re. australia [&#39;cause you&#39;re way off the mark on this one]

no dutch colony ever existed in what is now called australia, some dutch maps exist which name the landmass New Holland, but only about two dutch ships landed in western australia and were so scared they sailed on

there was an english invasion and then genocide here [which continues with local masters] :: english invasion also took place in new zealand

there was a guerrilla front just 30km north of sydney which took the red coats 60 years to break [and hardly any australians even know about it]

the red coats were fighting the aora koori nation [aboriginals if you like] not dutch not french

also speaking of another land invaded by the english and displaced people, huge numbers of irish dissidents were transported here in colonial times

to say that the british never fought in australia is as offencive as denying the nazi holocaust [but i assume that it is symptomatic of ignorance rather than any malicious revisionism]
englishmen spilt an awful deal of blood in my country [and continue to do their best to forget it]

the closest thing to a scuffle between two european powers here was when a french ship turned up to find the british already here [and left after about 40 days of hanging out amicably with the british invaders]



My appologise.

The British certainly "Invaded" the aboginies...but the land was "won" from the Dutch in a European scuffle..The British of that time considered it was theirs, and enforced this with the natives, who (as you pointed out) didnt know that and, rightly so, wouldnt have agreed with that point of view either.

Its the English/Dutch saga that somehow gets taught in our schools, with little or no attention given to the aboriginies (or at least this was the case all those years ago when i attended).


I take exception to the Irish example....as you said, it was the ENGLISH that invaded Ireland.

A small, but significant point, to anyone that isnt English.

..ask any Irishman, they have nothing against the Scots or the Welsh.


The English have been bastards throughout history, especially to the rest of Britain.


On Topic...

Neil__

Your possible future in-laws werent refugee&#39;s after the war, they became immigrants...and obviously contributed a lot to the country in which they settled.

Their daughter, by definition, is British?

I&#39;ve pointed out my opinion on the different problems and which im for/against.

If someone wishes to stay a "refugee", then i have no problem in that status being reviewed every 10 years or so....if they want to stay permanently, they can change status to immigrant..no problem.

What i&#39;d object to is these people getting more help than our own people on a permanent basis, ie: Permanent Refugee.

This status should be removed as soon as the reason for being a Refugee/Asylum seaker has been removed...ie War in their own country has stopped/change of regime in old country.

If they WANT to stay, fine by me.....As immigrants; with the same benefits/obligations as the local population.

Neil__
07-23-2003, 08:39 PM
Rat Faced.
Like I&#39;ve said before we need a coherent approach to assylum and imigration in Britain and in partnership in Europe.With each countries indevidual approach taylored towards a wider European approach.
Before they cam start, people need educating. It&#39;s such an emotive political issue that our present government won&#39;t touch it enough to make a difference. and also the people wont like rules on our assylum that seem to be imposed by Europe they would take that as "European superstate"ism
The gutter press would be all over it wipping up hysteria.

Neil