Ok then, you mentioned those who abuse the system. What do you feel about genuine requests for asylum?
Printable View
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.Quote:
Ok then, you mentioned those who abuse the system. What do you feel about genuine requests for asylum?
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'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 am sorry you feel so bitter.
You probably read the quote that I posted from Ruud Lubbers. If you didn'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.
Quote:
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'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:
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.Quote:
I am sorry you feel so bitter.
You probably read the quote that I posted from Ruud Lubbers. If you didn'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
I think you'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.Quote:
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
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 July 2003 - 16:26
Isnt that what i said?Quote:
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.
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.
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.
The only way that would happen would've been if the Communist International had succeeded. And, although it's an excellent ideology, it can never work in practice.
:ninja:
From what I'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't be forced. If they refuse to get on, police cannot force them.
For those who get the 'eviction' 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!! 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 'disappear' 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, 'civilized' countries as well) the good have to pay for the bad. It's a sad reality that everywhere refugees come, crime rises. Nobody in Belgium wants a refugee center in their town, because people don't feel safe anymore. Well, "feel safe" is an eufemism here. They AREN'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've been to Turkey on a holiday twice, and the difference between the people here and there is astonishing!
You can safely walk the streets at night in Turkey!! 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't want in Turkey either. Mind the "mostpart" bit, they'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's also the snakepit of religion. While different cultures can live together perfectly (IMHO), different religions cannot. Don'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'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't speak one word of Dutch. (or won't) What kind of example is that?
And yes, I'm aware of the atrocities the Christian church did in the past, but that'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'll probably be getting responses that say that Islam isn't aggressive, it's just extremists that are. Well, I don't agree. I know several people that should be muslems, but they don'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't have problems with Bouddhists or Hindous.....
Hello Ron,Quote:
Originally posted by Ron@14 July 2003 - 12:44
Again, I cannot but wonder why we don't have problems with Bouddhists or Hindous.....
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'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
LOL.
Thank you Nigel, but I already know a lot of Bouddhists.
Well, I know a lot of Chinese people. I just assume they're Bouddhists actually.
The reason they don't cause problems, must be the fact that they stick to themselves mostly. They don't try to force their religion on us. Neither do the Hindous, AFAIK.
Not aggressively anyway.
If it weren't for religion, the world would be a peaceful place.
And if weren't for ugly people, it would be a beautiful one too. :lol:
(Ron @ 14 July 2003 - 12:44)
Because they have wholey different beliefs, rather than a number of shared?Quote:
Again, I cannot but wonder why we don't have problems with Bouddhists or Hindous.....
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'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.
Well, I haven't seen any racial killings between Jews yet. And there a lot of them in Antwerp. Jews not recognizing other Jews isn't a problem for me. I can safely walk through the Jewish part of Antwerp at night, as long as there aren't any North Africans around.
Your remark that they come from places where life is cheap, doesn't quite cut it.
Turkey may not be the most democratic place on Earth, but people aren'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'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'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'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't it? ;)
Well, Belgium as well, I suppose.
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's way off topic!
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.
Why would the family be split up if they remained in the same region. ;)Quote:
The problem arises when members of ones family are residing in another European country.
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'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.
I don't think I've seen the word "immigrant" be so misused for quite some time.
You cannot "claim" immigrant status. It's granted to you after jumping through a number of hoops, and spending an obscene amount of money. I know. I've been through it.
Oddly enough, not all immigrants come from Asia or the Middle East. Although you wouldn't know it by reading this thread.
I'm not going to touch the religion aspect here yet; I have to run to the dentist. <_<
:ninja:
You should have come to Belgium then.
Over here, politicians jump through hoops for you, and you even get paid. <_<
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'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'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 'em out), and the ones coming through the Channel Tunnel.....from France (again...they broke the rules, throw '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're only a small Island.
R_F, what is "the white list"?
Uk Immigration and related
Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 introdused it... there is a PDF download on this webpage giving more details
Indeed. My post wasn't really directed at you RF. Just those who were, for some reason, confusing the immigration system with the refugee system.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@14 July 2003 - 20:55
...however i'm trying to remove the immigration issue from the other two ie: Asylum/Refugee. These two are a wholey different problem...
:ninja:
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Ron@14 July 2003 - 17:24
Turkey may not be the most democratic place on Earth, but people aren'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 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'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'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:
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's why it'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't think that was a valid argument for the reasons I stated.
Hello Junkyardking:Quote:
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:
You can do something about it though!
Join your local refugee helpers council!
Nigel
theres an excellent article from the BBC website here and apparently there is going to be a 5 part series on asylum
Rat your right on the money with most things [thanks for the succinct explanation of the british system],Quote:
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.
but, just a couple of points re. australia ['cause you'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't speak with someone you can eat with them [you'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're on an island!
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]
Why 10 years. why not 100Quote:
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.
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's?
do you concider her family "SCUM"?
I don'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.
Nice one there Neil.Quote:
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.
I'm not commenting whether you or 4play is right, but you can'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.
I thought I already did.
But to clarify.
It's one of the stupidest things I'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.
Quote:
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 ['cause you'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'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'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'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.
Rat Faced.
Like I'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's such an emotive political issue that our present government won'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