If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Looks and sounds like being jailed to me.
What do you call being locked inside a compund then?
Protect from what?
Against their will? Hardly. If I was looking to escape persecution, I wouldn't be complaining about being detained for a period while my application was processed. Would you?
What reforms do you suggest to the system? Allowing an open border for anyone to enter the country?
im sorry but they chose to come to england then they need to deal with the way OUR system works, if they dont like it why not stop in one of the many SAFE countrys in the EU on there way here?
Huh? You mean that people *want* to be locked up?
See previous post about encouraging people to work, look after themselves.
Surely you don't want to detain someone at your expense, when they could be working/earning and paying their way?
You aren't sorry at all, so why both typing that?
Why is it okay to lock someone away, to detain them against their will, when no crime has been committed? Doesn't that go against our system of justice?
Because this is a great country to be in, when you get in. It's people like you who make me forget that at times.
How ridiculous.
Indeed you are right, in the sense that for many people they do need to get used to our system, which they perceive as one that in principal upholds human rights, democracy and personal dignity.
Oh and for a lot of people, the 'choice' to come to Britain needs to be qualified with the statement that, despite what the Daily Mail might say, a lot of them do come in fear of their lives.
I am not saying they rant being missed treated in they home country but what’s wrong with France? or one of the many other countries they travel though? The fact is they chose England because they feel they would have a better life here then in one of the other SAFE countries, and i have no problem with that, but when they get here they should understand that we have a system set up to protect ourselves, and if they want to be part of this Great Nation then they need to go though the system.
at the end of the day the system is set up so we don’t allow anyone just to turn up on our shores and go free into the public without first indentifying them and assessing the risk. Surly you don’t think people should be let in without knowing who they are?
If the alternative is death or persecution, what legitimate complaint can they have? I for one wouldn't have a problem with temporary dention if I was an asylum seeker. Would you???
How about just opening the borders to anyone who wants to come here, no questions asked, no proof of identity required?
No i don't and i think you may have missed my earlier comment to the affect that;
So if there was a civil war in the UK, and many people fled to France, you wouldn't have a problem with your family being locked up and treated like a criminal?
Yes, I would have a problem with that situation. Especially when it involves children being locked up.
If that wasn't the case, why are they kept locked up in prison-like buildings with bars in the windows and prevented from leaving?
Please...
No. But treating those who do get in like decent human beings not criminals or livestock.
edit: livestock get treated better
being a reguee, strangely enough in many countries there isnt much paperwork kept on civilians, sometimes maybe a passport that's about it or a birth certificate and a couple of photos
there's nothing wrong with keeping an eye on people, doing it in a prison where people are barred from even seeing news footage of that prison being criticsied, or getting solitary confinemenet for questioning the running is a joke
nice handy source to read from the UN on where applications come from and who gets them? in the past 10 years industrialised nations have been taking on less and less
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?id=464049e63&tbl=STATISTICS
and on the UK specifically
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/statistics/opendoc.pdf
we mainly get asylum applications from
Somalia
Afghanistan
Iraq
Turkey
Serbia
3 of those we are almost partially responsible for the state they're in, Iraq and afghanistan definetly - somalia, we didn't really didnt argue about america kicking out the only stabilising force (UIC) by ethiopian or eritrean forces(forgot the exact country)
im not going to get started on the iraq thing because it will turn in to a iraq debate again, but afghanistan? really, that place as always been a shithole, long before we got involved, i mean they had be in a civil war for nearly 30 years before we invaded,
Erm...no it didn't. They were fighting against the Soviets who tried to invade them in 1979, get your facts straight next time and I'd really appreciate if you didn't refer to countries as "shitholes."
Then I seriously doubt if they truly are 'asylum seekers' in the first place.
Obviously given the choice between detention or no detention...they are going to opt for the latter. Especially those who aren't genuine in the first place. That doesn't equate to genuine asylum seekers having a problem with it.
[/QUOTE]
That's no real answer, Aladdin. You know as well as I do that if people claiming asylum weren't detained, they'd simply merge in with the populace and disappear off the 'radar'. Such a policy would effectively be open-door for everyone.
It's also worth noting that the conditions of these detention facilities are far from prison like, so the comparison to treating them like "livestock" and "criminals" are rather far-off.
So let me get this right... on the one hand you are saying that asylum seekers would not mind being locked up for up months at a time. And on the other that if they were not locked up they'd dissapear off the radar.
Either asylum seekers are willing to accept the rules or they aren't. Which one is it?
i think you will find in 1973 the King Zahir Shah was killied by his brother-in-law who then took controll of the country untill 78 when communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan launched a coup known as the Great Saur Revolution and took control, by this point the whole country was at war,
American then began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces which lead to Sovies invading, and the place was pretty much in a state of civil war,
so maybe you should get your fact straight.
It's not without reason, and its not about enjoyment. I'll say again, if anyone claiming asylum has a major problem with temporary detention, they aren't genuinely fleeing persecution. No-one in their right mind seeking asylum can have a problem with this.
Look, if I was fleeing persecution and had the choice between detention and freedom to go and do whatever, I would obviously choose the latter, as would anyone. But that isn't the same as having a problem with detention. Temporary humane detention in a safe country is going to be preferable to persecution would you not agree?
Not to mention those who had spent traumatic time in prison in their own countries. Who would want to relive their nightmares???
Of course. But not being locked up is far more preferable than being locked up. And the point is that nobody needs to be locked up.
If a few (and it is a few regardless of what the right wing tabloids might claim) people are not genuine asylum seekers and they dissapear off the radar, well that's a small price to pay for doing the right thing. Locking up thousands of innocent and decent people to try to prevent a few of them staying here illegally is not acceptable.
i really wouldnt call more than 400,000 failed asylum seekers whose applications have been refused dissapear in the country a "FEW" , and i dont that they would have been able to if they was all put in centers to be processed
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1048722006
Different thread, same idiosyncratic twist on logic.
From here
you want to talk about Unbiased options and then you quote from the refugee council, lol, that makes sence,
They might be biased, but they have proven that all those articles, headlines and 'news' from the tabloid press are all lies.
I'm sure if the Refugee Council was lying itself in that particular piece there would be no shortage of people, least of them the newspapers in question, to denounce them. But that's not the case.
From 'ASYLUM SEEKERS EAT OUR SWANS' to 'COUNTRY IS BEING SWARMED WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' to 'ASYLUM SEEKERS GIVEN HOUSES AND CARS', it's all lies and scaremongering from our fine tabloid press.
The Refugee Council has no agenda against British people getting council houses. What a crock. It represents the facts in terms of asylum seekers and their situation... they are not trying to deprive any other social group of social benefit or council housing, they just do the best they can by the people they are the voice of.
Detention for a period while a claim is processed is not the same as imprisonment as a result of persecution.