Shoot first

Will, the idea that the UK receives more than it's "fair share" of asylum seekers than the rest of Europe or is somehow "soft" or an "easy target" is simply not true and one of the many myths about asylum seekers perpetuated by the right-wing media.

If you'd like to know the facts I suggest you read a little of the following links:

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/myths/myth001.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2608479.stm

Belgium, Holland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and Germany all take on far more asylum seekers than the UK (per head of population).

Michael.

 

that's cos most of em have a tiny population, and a a large land area

what about popn density. we are the among the very most crowded with land ratio, the highest house prices, overstretched health, crowded roads, car ownership.....

I am all for helping people who need it, but some take the micky, like muslims who claim cash and try to kill us.

 

The only sensible measurement is per head of population. The only large and populous countries in the (pre-enlargement) EU to take on significantly less asylum seekers than the UK are France, Spain and Italy.

Population density is irrelevant...or are you suggesting that countries with large unpopulated areas should take on more people and build special asylum seeker towns in the middle of nowhere? Perhaps you'd prefer it if they were prison camps instead?

Michael.

 

it is irrelevant to the present discussion yes, but aint if you can't afford a house or get a dentist/hospital appointment in overcrowded blightly.

perhaps another thread if the will is there to discuss that.

let's stay on track to eek out people's thoughts..

I have said enough for now...see y;all in a few days.

 

Thats fair enough Michael, but the second article you posted doesn't really seem to give much of a consensus of opinion - the UNHCR commisioner (who presumably/hopefully knows a lot about asylum policy and the numbers) seems to disagree with many of the other academics and researches in the article - 'Let's share the burden so that we have less in the UK and more spread over the EU," he said.

As for the refugee council, they to my eyes have a somewhat vested interest - you wouldn't accept articles, facts or figures from the Migration Watch website as being free of bias (as they are biased!), but then would you argue that a group which represents refugee groups is not going to hold a sympathetic and possibly biased viewpoint on immigration/asylum?

I'm surprised at the general lack of support for a EU wide policy that would be seen as 'fairer' really though, even if it didn't actually do all that much for the numbers entering the UK - to do anything to help control immigration would generally be a popular move for this government (even if in fact all it did was improve control over rather than reduce immigration/asylum applicants).

It would surely help reduce the draw that extreme right wing parties have, who gain support from those who see nothing being done about the immigration problem (for whether its a real or imagined problem, and there seems not to be that much of a consensus on that, it would reduce support for the BNP and similar if something was seen to help reduce it?).

 

A main reason for people not being able to afford a houses is due to supply and demand. There are people prepared to pay the asking [price and more for property in certain areas. This is because a lot of people want to live in these areas.

Also housing has been a very good investment over the years.

Also more single people are after property.

Also there are alot of property just standing empty. Here is an example of figures in Yorkshire.

http://www.emptyhomes.com/resources/statistics/homeless/yhhome.htm

As for the hospital and dentists, there are again many reasons from people missing appointments, government targets and not enough qualified staff.

I will add my comments about the main topic in question soon.

SCIDB

 

Check THIS. Netherlands and Belgium are both a lot more crowded than us...
And Germany's only a bit less crowded!
And Here's the statistics for the 1st quarter of 2005 wrt assylum seekers...
You'll be pleased to hear that the leading countries for assylum to be sought are:
1. France
2. USA
3. UK

Doesn't necessarily mean it' granted!

 

We DID have a shoot to kill policy with the IRA mate. It's not the US influence either. It's the, please don't blow us up you mad bastrd influence.

Jeeeez

 

Interesting table Leonard.

What's worth noting though is that if you take just England i.e. ignore the sparsely populated Wales and Scotland, then the density rises to 383 people per square km which is a fair bit higher than Belgium.

Matt.

 

I think you will find Holland has Knocked down most buildings where asylum seekers lived. The reason why? An excuse to stop having them.

 

Source?

I doubt the truth of your claim since it would be quite absurd to knock down housing in order to say "See - we don't have any space for them". If they wanted to change their policy on asylum seekers they wouldn't need to make excuses to anyone, they'd just do it. Your claim also implies there was housing that was used exclusively by asylum seekers that have miraculously disappeared - rather doubtful IMO.

However, my statement was not based on the latest figures so it's quite possible that since then Holland, with it's coalition government that includes the Dutch equivalent of the BNP, has instituted a racist asylum policy.

Michael.

 

Well it was on the news C4 a few months ago.

They were also refusing to let asylum seekers stay who had been in the country for 10 years. Is this right i don't know, the only possible reason in my mind would be that the country the asylum seekers came from is now safe.

 

Fair enough, but irrelevant.
Assylum seekers don't just go to London, or Manchester!
However, your argument echoes that of many successive governments - ignore Scotland and Wales
That's probably why I often go to both on holiday.
And nowt wrong with Belgium - I've been way past incoherence many times after the Duvel..

 

It wasn't really an argument - just pointing out a fact.

Largely ignoring Scotland for placing immigrants (they do get some I believe) is madness as if there is one country that desperately needs a large number of immigrants it's Scotland.

On immigration/assylum policy generally, it always fascinates me that whilst Australia appears to have one of the toughest sets of rules in this respect, no-one ever calls them racist whereas if any European country even tinkers with their rules/quotas the left tar them with the racist brush in an instant.

To me, the racist thing should be simple:

1. If you deny people entry based on where they come from and/or the colour of their skin then this is racist.
2. If you deny people entry because they are from another country (e.g. because your country can't take any more immigrants period) than that's not racist (although I know some would suggest that is).

Matt.

 

Problem with sending lots of immigrants to empty areas of Britain is that:
1) There's no spare housing
2) They're invariably Outstanding Areas Of National Beauty, or National Parks -which means building no more housing.
3) Country communities tend to be freaked out when a nice middle class British black or Asian person visits - just think how they'd be if non-English speaking alien-looking folk descended on them!
4) Empty areas tend to be mountainous - inhospitable places to live if you're expecting cushty-shops-next-door type things.

There's shedloads of immigrants and assylum seekers in Glasgow, Edinburgh and much of the lowlands - especially where there's redundant housing stock the locals don't want!

And I do think there has been condemnation of Austraila's policy toward assylum seekers - wasn't there a couple of major riots in holding camps about conditions, and wasn't there that business with the ship full of Indonesians carted forcibly away by the Aussie authorities?

 

You what ? Their asylum policy has come in for more stick than almost any other. It's both racist and cruelly inhumane. Their Woomera detention centre (in the middle of an inhospitable desert) for asylum seekers who's cases have yet to be heard is little better than a concentration camp.

It's used for "illegal asylum seekers" allthough there is actually no such thing. It's impossible for an asylum seeker to be "illegal". If they enter the country illegally or without any documents they are still just an asylum seeker like any other. If their application is denied and they remain in the country then they become an illegal immigrant.

Australia has even devised the sinister sounding Pacific Solution for handling asylum claims outside of it's own borders. I recall there was someone in 1940s Germany who also devised a "Solution" for people he didn't want in his country...

Michael.

 

Australia maybe not called racist, but xenophobic would suit.

 

Australia dealing with the problem head on, very tight on who they let into their country, which is the right way IHMO.

Comment removed due it's poor taste. That man was somebodies son

 

Source?

So you think it's fine for any illegal immigrant who runs from the police to be shot and killed?