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
a question on asylum seekrs specifically
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
no asylum seekers can make it here as there 1st safe place of call, does that mean we should have none
personally no matter what we should accept our fair share of refugees, and as there arent that many real refugee who make it it here, im quite happy to say, id do it at the moment on a "if youre a genuine refugee and make it here, youre in after the checks are done"
obvoiusly if EVERY refugee came to britain youd have to start limiting it, but at the moment comapred to rest of europe we should take our fair share
just posted this cause apollo tried to defend himself to right wingers by saying we send them back to place they came from if its safe, if they fail send them to the country they were known to be in last, surely its a moral duty to help those in need as best we can, those who make false claims should be dealt with AS APPROPIATE, and there should be room for appeal as bad decsion are always made
personally no matter what we should accept our fair share of refugees, and as there arent that many real refugee who make it it here, im quite happy to say, id do it at the moment on a "if youre a genuine refugee and make it here, youre in after the checks are done"
obvoiusly if EVERY refugee came to britain youd have to start limiting it, but at the moment comapred to rest of europe we should take our fair share
just posted this cause apollo tried to defend himself to right wingers by saying we send them back to place they came from if its safe, if they fail send them to the country they were known to be in last, surely its a moral duty to help those in need as best we can, those who make false claims should be dealt with AS APPROPIATE, and there should be room for appeal as bad decsion are always made
0
Comments
In real terms we take a stupidly small amount of asylum seekers, about 20,000 all in.
I can however see the logic in working with both the EU and the UN to take blocks of asylum seekers and sharing them out, rather than the piece meal approach now.
But then that might mean giving power to Brussels and surely they would make us speak French and ban pork pies.
It'd have to be some extraordinarily bad navigation not to see France and Spain on the way past. If you can see them from a boat, I'd say they count as safe ports particularly when faced with a trip across the Bay of Biscay in a potentially dodgy boat.
By air they can........
Its obvious we cannot house all the asylum seekers of the world but first we need to differentiate between those genuinely fleeing for their lives and those who are really economic migrants in disguise.
I believe we, in conjunction with our European friends, should negotaite quotas so that no one state is over-burdened with the problem, and also agree what constitutes an genuine asylum seeker.
I personally think we should have a separate "Immigration Tax" on everyone's income so that we can both see and feel the cost of catering for asylum seekers. Many taxpayers may want to pay more to cater for the cost of allowing in more aslyum seekers, it could be a very positive initiative that allow in many more.
Asylum seekers are just a huge expense to the British taxpayer.
The facts
A recent Home Office study found that, far from being a burden on UK taxpayers, migrants made a net contribution of approximately £2.5 billion to income tax in 1999-2000.
and the original stats
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html
So under the system you suggest people would theoritically be paid money for allowing asylum seekers in
is that all people coming in or just asylum seekers?
anyway it isnt all aobut economics, its a moral duty to help hose in need who make it here
I agree, maybe we should take some of the burden of the Germans and take more ourselves.
I question the figures quoted and would offer an alternative take on this, with particular reference to "Overall Economic Benefit" - point 16.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/frameset.asp?menu=publications&page=publications.asp
So we should never trust any figures and just go on gut instint which is telling you there is an asylum crisis, why?
Your argument is that the geographically closest country who is classified as "safe" should assume full responsibility for the refugees/asylum seekers?
A nice big fat blanket law that doesn't take into account anything other than geographical proximity.
I normally find that people opposed to immigration are horribly misinformed about the real figures and are blinded by the horrific spin of trashy papers and rival political parties. Often the real issue boils down to the fact that some countries refuse to admit asylum seekers and that they feel the UK takes more than its fair share. It doesn't, and it's inexcusable that said countries refuse entry.
Good one!
Anyone know cos I don't.
Hmmm yes, a site run by a eugenics supporter. Nice.
Isnt it somewhere really strange like Iran?
The massive majority of refugees never get anywhere near First World countries.
They take over a million and we, being fantastically wealthy take 20,000.
Well Aladdin found a Genie in a lamp didn't he...well the one in the movies anyway, I can't comment about this Aladdin. I think its RK trying to make an insult though.
Keep up with your stories and Disney films Jim.
That's what you wish