Turn on thread page Beta

The old 'deportation of asylum seekers' debate watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Right Ads, jus a heads up. I know Kate and she will argue with you till the bitter end.
    And may i also add.............shes right! I totally agree with her (granted we were in the same Humanities class and therefore heard the same opinion from the teacher, who was an amzing teacher), but I agree. How can u not open up your mind just a lil bit. Maybe I'm crazy, but I know this girl knows what she's on about and she will win!
    Kate, you have my support!

    Toodles
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Kate whats this obsession with propaganda. I'm intelligent, I make my own decisions and I sift out whats Bullsh*t and whats not in the news. And yes I have a right wing political stance.

    But you have got to admit though my argument is logical. If you are fleeing from war you would setup camp at the safest country you come to first. I see no reason why you would want to come to the UK - longer distance to travel to (and also return from if you hope to return to your home country), terrible weather (in comprarison to the south of France) - other than for financial gain.

    Why then did we see repeated scenes of illegal aslyum seekers trying to enter the channel tunnel on foot?

    But anyway on a broader scale what do you say about those who have been refused asylum to the UK, and therefore not legitimate to stay in the country. According to our Government laws they are not genuine reugees, but why doesn't our Governemnt deport them immediately? Only to find that when they want to deport them they have 'done a runner.'

    These people definitely have no right to stay in our country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ads, i am not suggesting you aren't intelligent, far from it, i have admitted your argument is stuctured, and you do have a right to your opinions. However so do I. What is wrong with Asylums seekers running to a place where they not only escape persecution, but also have the best chance of making a good life for themselves. I believe that the governments system for dealing with Asylum seekers should be improved. There should be a deeper investigation into indivdual cases, as each Asylum seeker is an individual. However, this is a slow process. I did not know we were talking about illegal immigrants who must of been refused for various reasons, if they are refused, then of course they must be asked to leave the country, as long as they where they are sent is a safe.

    My question is, why you have a problem with true asylum seekers choosing the more generous of the countries, wouldn't you. And as it isn't really effecting the economy, why is this an issue?

    Kate
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok Kate. I accept your comments and thank you for keeping this as a mature discussion.

    In answer to your question:

    (Original post by Kate29987)
    My question is, why you have a problem with true asylum seekers choosing the more generous of the countries, wouldn't you. And as it isn't really effecting the economy, why is this an issue?
    I look at other countries immigration system, e.g the US and Australia, and they seem to have come up with effective systems, with the US being perhaps slightly more lenient than Australia. First of all I think our country should adopt these systems. But with reference to genuine asylum seekers it would be fine if they just got a job, paid their taxes and intergrated discretely with soceity - however they don't, and it is us, the taxpayer that has to fund them. (Thats my view from an enconomical perspective). And if you look at countries like Australia who are very strict, it has not been detremental to them by refusing asylum seekers.

    And not that I condemm racist attacks, but i believe that the influx of asylum seekers may have contribuated towards the motivation for these attacks. And all this thuggish behaviour gives the UKa bad image.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can't agree with you about the economic damage done, because as other people in this post have said, they actually do improve the economy.

    But with reference to genuine asylum seekers it would be fine if they just got a job, paid their taxes and intergrated discretely with soceity
    There is a problem with work permits, as it was said in another post. It is not that they don't get jobs and intergrate themselves, it's that they can't. Asylum seekers are just that, seeking asylum, they have not yet been accepted by the government, and therefore cannot get a work permit, if they were given work permits in this inbetween stage, they would get exploited by employers who would hire them as cheap labor. I know this happens illegally anyway, but it shouldn't. Asylum seekers don't get large amounts of money, they get vouchers for food and necessities. They do not get the best housing, and face prejudice on a daily basis.

    They cannot as you say intergrate themselves successful, because of these factors.

    And not that I condemm racist attacks, but i believe that the influx of asylum seekers may have contribuated towards the motivation for these attacks. And all this thuggish behaviour gives the UKa bad image.
    Who's thuggish behaviour?

    Kate
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ads.)
    2. My thoughts regarding families who are 'economic burdens' apply to British nationals as well. Recently there was an article about a woman who has 15 (yes 15!) children, yet cannot work, and sponges off the state £45,000 a year. There is absolutely no need to have 15 children and by giving them money it encourages them to exploit the British Government. (Indeed the eldest son has already got his teenage girlfriend pregnant)
    .
    Other than educating kids better to prevent this happening, what do you suggest we do with this family? Withdraw benefits and let the 15 kids starve to death on the streets?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kate29987)
    sorry, i was addressing Ads. Though the idea of detention centres bring Nazi Germany to mind, even though you didn't mean it that way, i don't agree with general deportation, only the deportation of individuals when necessary.

    sorry, next time I'll point my finger.

    kate
    Comparing detention centres to concentration camps is lazy at best, stupid at worst. Concentration camps were used for slave labour to resource the Nazi war effort, followed by murder of these 'undesireables'. Detention centres are obviously nothing like this, they are quite the opposite in fact! They are a place were people are actually safe from abuse and be provided with healthcare, food, education, etc. Detention centres are fairer than the current shambolic system in which people are waiting anxiously for months on end, a decision could be made far quicker so that the applicants know where they stand. Please think before you speak next time!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    Other than educating kids better to prevent this happening, what do you suggest we do with this family? Withdraw benefits and let the 15 kids starve to death on the streets?
    The cold hard facts are that this woman chose to have 15 children, therefore it is her responsibility to provide for them. The taxpayers of this country did not force her to have them, nor did they ask her to have them. Therefore the taxpayer has absolutely no moral burden what so ever to provide for them. If people knew that the state wouldn't clear everything up and financially reward irresponsible and damaging behaviour then society really would start to improve!

    UNITEDKINGDOMINDEPENDENCEPARTY

    The UK Independence Party is the only party telling you the truth about who actually runs this country and why we should all act now

    Remember folks "If it's wet, drink it!" (Gary Strang, 'Men Behaving Badly')

    TSR Southern Society member
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok we digress form asylum seekers here, but I'll give you my thoughts

    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    Other than educating kids better to prevent this happening, what do you suggest we do with this family? Withdraw benefits and let the 15 kids starve to death on the streets?
    Personally I have no quarms with what you are saying, their benefits should be withdrawn and they should be forced to fend for themselves. But before you call me inhumane and unethical, this only a thought and our Government would never allow this to happen.

    Realistically there is not mch we can do now now as she is in a financial conundrum that relies on benefits. The battle was lost when she had 7,8,9 + child, and was still receiving benefits.

    It's a families right to have as many children as they want, providing they can afford to look after them. And as Greyhound says the taxpayer has no moral obligation to provide for them. The problem is by helping this family, whats not to stop another family from having 15 children just becuase they are too lazy to work?

    Ok, now back to the subject of deporting asylum seekers
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Greyhound02, I did not mean to suggest that detention camps and concentration camps are one in the same. And while I agree that it may be better to keep asylum seekers in a controlled environment, and that it could be better for them in this transtion period, I feel this method would further alienate asylum seekers from society.
    And some were kept in concentration camps to await deportation I think.

    Sorry if you found my post offensive, it wasn't meant to be.

    Kate
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kate29987)
    Greyhound02, I did not mean to suggest that detention camps and concentration camps are one in the same. And while I agree that it may be better to keep asylum seekers in a controlled environment, and that it could be better for them in this transtion period, I feel this method would further alienate asylum seekers from society.
    And some were kept in concentration camps to await deportation I think.

    Sorry if you found my post offensive, it wasn't meant to be.

    Kate
    Utter tosh. Asylum seekers are already alienated completely from society because people have a problem with the fact that they don't contribute to society. If detention centres were introduced the public would be reassured that those who are granted asylum are genuine, and they would be able to integrate better into society as a result.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ok Carl, I know that people have a problem with asylum seekers in this country, and this does make the transition difficult. I can also understand that detention centres may reassure the British public that the asylum seekers are genuine. I am not yet convinced, however that this is a humane approach to the problem.

    Maybe someone could answer some of my questions, and therefore rid me of all my "tosh".

    Doesn't this kind of containment breach human rights?
    Are there any acceptions, would you imprision children, or send the children into care seperating them from there families?
    What about the economic effect, won't the cost of building the prisions and maintaining them dig into the tax payers pocket?
    What about psychological effects on people who have had to leave there own country because of wars, opressive leaderships etc?

    Please answer, so I might understand?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Kate I have done a bit of research in least to be able to answer a couple of your questions:
    (Original post by Kate29987)
    Doesn't this kind of containment breach human rights?
    No, quoted directly from the liberty website:"The courts have found the UK’s Immigration Detention procedures, as set down in the Home Offices ‘Operational Guidance Manual’, to be generally compatible with Article 5, and can properly be regarded as representing the Secretary of State’s view of what is proportionate. However, by necessary inference detention in contravention of that policy must be regarded as a breach of Article 5 on the grounds that it is disproportionate."

    As long as the detention meets the 5* requirements, they are deemed legal.

    (Original post by Kate29987)
    Are there any acceptions, would you imprision children, or send the children into care seperating them from there families?
    Well yeah I would imprison them, but according to the BBC it doesn't happen: "children should not normally be detained because of the effect on their health."

    (Original post by Kate29987)
    What about the economic effect, won't the cost of building the prisions and maintaining them dig into the tax payers pocket?
    Well it's better to have a one off payment to construct the building and suss out who is legitimate and not, then to let everyone in and have to fund their benefits throughout their lifetime which could amount to more than the cost of the building.

    I can't answer the last question as I do not have sufficient information to make a valid answer.

    Here are the websites I used:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4109720.stm
    http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-ri...n-rights.shtml
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    If they are in detention centres, and the application is assessed in the same place I don't understand what takes so long....
    so it is wishful thinking.


    (Original post by Carl)
    Well they can't work legally.......
    you said they work for criminal gangs i assumed that ment mafia types - drug dealers, pimps etc...so what do you mean by criminal gangs?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by junkscience)
    you said they work for criminal gangs i assumed that ment mafia types - drug dealers, pimps etc...so what do you mean by criminal gangs?
    Well usually it is unscrupulous people who emply people who can't work legally.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kate29987)
    ok Carl, I know that people have a problem with asylum seekers in this country, and this does make the transition difficult. I can also understand that detention centres may reassure the British public that the asylum seekers are genuine. I am not yet convinced, however that this is a humane approach to the problem.

    Maybe someone could answer some of my questions, and therefore rid me of all my "tosh".
    First, cheers to Ads for some answers

    Doesn't this kind of containment breach human rights?
    No it does not. These people are not citizens of our country, have entered illegally and so detention is a proportionate response whilst we deduce whether they have the right to stay
    Are there any acceptions, would you imprision children, or send the children into care seperating them from there families?
    I believe families would remain together in a detention centre. Can people not use terms like imprison-detention centres are not prisons, nor will be anything like them.
    What about the economic effect, won't the cost of building the prisions and maintaining them dig into the tax payers pocket?
    No it won't. The one off cost will greatly offset the cost of finding failed asylum seekers once they scarper, and the social problems that they cause.
    What about psychological effects on people who have had to leave there own country because of wars, opressive leaderships etc?
    What about them? These people, if genuine, are priveleged that we should consider allowing them in. What is a few weeks detention in return for a safe home for life?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    social problems that they cause.
    Expand pls...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    Expand pls...
    Failed asylum seekers squat because they can't get homes, sometimes steal to make ends meet, often work illegally, and this work supports criminal activity. And they don't pay taxes.

    Enough for you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    Failed asylum seekers squat because they can't get homes, sometimes steal to make ends meet, often work illegally, and this work supports criminal activity. And they don't pay taxes.

    Enough for you?
    Where did you get the information for such assumptions?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    Where did you get the information for such assumptions?
    The assumptions are based on common sense. Don't be such a pedant.

    I'm tired. I've just finished a twelve hour shift. If you really doubt what I say find something that proves me wrong. Failed asylum seekers are bad for the UK. Full stop.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.