Asylum Seekers; Yay or Nay?

[Gwadien]

I know if I posed the question are you happy with the European migration stuff at the minute, the resounding response would be probably nah, it needs dealing with.

I just thought it would be a good idea (With our extreme cross range of Freddys) to get an idea of people's PoVs on Asylum Seekers - Mainly from Syria and Iraq.

I'll leave the poll private, I'd just like to see if the approach of 'KEEP THEM IN CALAIS' is just one that's rolled over from the European migration.

Anywhos.

 

[CorNokZ]

Yay. They'd probably rather be in their own country, but they can't. They are not here to smooch on our benefits. They are here because they have nowhere else.

 

[Raven]

Yes, they are humans and need help.

Though we also need to lay waste to ISIS and co.

 

[Poag]

This may/maynot be a shift from the first post. But for me its about the difference between. Economic Migrant and Asylum Seeker.

In my mind there should be 4 positions. The first on Economic Migrants is that we should treat this in a similar fashion to Aus. Points, trial periods and then citizen/fail.

The second is for Asylum Seekers who wish to return home once the situation has stabilized. These people can be allowed in almost right away, some security checks, health etc, they are housed somewhere and looked after to a certain level, cannot work. I feel all the shit we've done means we should just look after them till stuff calms down. Where 'here' is for them to be looked after i dont know. But the standard of living should be maintained of that of their source country/life pre current shitstorm. Possibly also some in 'camp' (for lack of a better word) education so they go home with better skills and knowledge to hopefully stop shitstorm reoccuring.

The third is for Asylum Seekers who wish to remain here permanently. These should go into centers for processing, kept is similar situations to the above, but given access to education and possibly allowed reduced working hours per week. While their claim is processed. If they fail then they are housed like #2 and returned to source post crapfest. If successful they get moved into society and are required to attend a course aimed at bringing them into society, rather than just into an ex-pat society from their source country....personally i find these very close knit and defensive communities a concern.

Finally the illegals. These should be returned to source without question. If you situation is dire enough to make the journey then it should be enough to get you in officially under #2 or #3.

 

[DaGaffer]

Frankly the Germans are putting the British (and others) to shame. Its a sad state of affairs when Angela Merkel can make you look like small minded compassionless xenophobes.

 

[old.user4556]

This thread should be fun.

 

[Bodhi]

Economic Migrants - yes if we need them, otherwise no.

Asylum Seekers - yes if this is the first safe country they've landed in, otherwise no. Germany and Sweden seem happy to have them, let them fill their boots - although the German and Swedish populations seem less keen.

 

[Gwadien]

Economic Migrants - yes if we need them, otherwise no.

Asylum Seekers - yes if this is the first safe country they've landed in, otherwise no. Germany and Sweden seem happy to have them, let them fill their boots - although the German and Swedish populations seem less keen.

Yes if this is the first country that the land in?

I can't remember your Euro views, but either way, shouldn't we be supporting other European nations, and other 'friendly' nations at that - IE, since the Greeks are in a geographic disadvantage, should we just wash our hands of it?

Perhaps if you were a nation which had no role on the Crusade on Terror, then you could perhaps say 'fuck you' but in my PoV, we should be helping every country that has this mess on their hands because of us and the US.

 

[Moriath]

Asylum seekers should seek asylum in the first safe country they get to.

Economic migrants that are skilled and we have shortages for. Yes.

I agree with @Bodhi.

 

[Raven]

So basically what you are saying is that all refugees should be the problem of Greece, Italy and the Balkan states? Basically anyone South and East in Europe.

Really?

We should take our fair share as we are a part of Europe (rightfully or wrongly) but we should also be doing what we can to make their homeland less of as shithole.

Our previous Labour government and George Bush is to blame for much of what is wrong in the world right now. We have left three vacuums of power (Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan) and failed to do anything in a country where really we should be stepping in (Syria) It seems we are only willing to be the world police where there is oil or gas.

Besides, there is plenty of work available to them, plenty of jobs that need filling, so why not?

 

[Bodhi]

Well, are Greece, Italy and the Balkan States a safe place? If so, then yes, they should be processed there.

 

[Poag]

Well, are Greece, Italy and the Balkan States a safe place? If so, then yes, they should be processed there.

I kind of agree with this. But they should be Processed IN their. After which point they are farmed out uniformly to the EU states on a...hmm.....GDP tally...or something. So that each country gets a weight of seekers relative to their ability to support them using the stuff i detailed way back to differentiate between the 4 groups.

This stops them making journeys over the entire EU in potentially dangerous methods. Means we actually get a track on how many there are, and those who want to go back can be kept together.

 

[DaGaffer]

I kind of agree with this. But they should be Processed IN their. After which point they are farmed out uniformly to the EU states on a...hmm.....GDP tally...or something. So that each country gets a weight of seekers relative to their ability to support them using the stuff i detailed way back to differentiate between the 4 groups.

This stops them making journeys over the entire EU in potentially dangerous methods. Means we actually get a track on how many there are, and those who want to go back can be kept together.

This. Which is what's supposed to be happening anyway, but certain countries are dragging their feet, while others are taking way more than their share.

 

[Bodhi]

I kind of agree with this. But they should be Processed IN their. After which point they are farmed out uniformly to the EU states on a...hmm.....GDP tally...or something. So that each country gets a weight of seekers relative to their ability to support them using the stuff i detailed way back to differentiate between the 4 groups.

This stops them making journeys over the entire EU in potentially dangerous methods. Means we actually get a track on how many there are, and those who want to go back can be kept together.

Don't have a problem with us taking our own fair share, as long as it has been established that they have a legitimate claim and we know (as well as we can) who they are. I'm even happy for us to send resources out there to help out.

However the best solution I've seen to this whole mess doesn't revolve around letting refugees into anyone's country - it involves giving them their own country somewhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...the-refugees-Give-them-their-own-country.html

Sees the most sensible suggestion so far to me.

 

[Trem]

I'm staying out of it because I cannot be articulate enough to portray what I mean without either sounding like a hippy (which I'm fine with) or sounding like a Nazi (which I aren't fine with). All I know is that without *foreigners* the NHS would be fucked, we would have no nurses or doctors etc, I know about that because I saw that. The other stuff I don't know enough about to get involved anymore

Edit - I did discuss about the safe places thing (mainly with DaG) on another thread so I feel no need to do it again here.

 

[DaGaffer]

Don't have a problem with us taking our own fair share, as long as it has been established that they have a legitimate claim and we know (as well as we can) who they are. I'm even happy for us to send resources out there to help out.

However the best solution I've seen to this whole mess doesn't revolve around letting refugees into anyone's country - it involves giving them their own country somewhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...the-refugees-Give-them-their-own-country.html

Sees the most sensible suggestion so far to me.

Bit naive. There's a reason sparsely populated areas are sparsely populated. Its an idea that's been mooted before, mainly in relation to displaced Jews both before and after the War (the Nazis originally thought about transporting Jews to Madagascar, and the there was a post-war plan to relocate them to Alaska but they said "fuck that" and set up Israel), but setting up an entire country is a buttload more expensive than absorbing people into existing structures, and what does "refugeeland" look like in the long-term? After a generation, it becomes, all being well, just another country, and where do refugees go then?

 

[Trem]

Oh, my main thought right now is that without immigration we would never of had Konnie Huq.

Hnnnghhh *fap*

 

[Gwadien]

Don't have a problem with us taking our own fair share, as long as it has been established that they have a legitimate claim and we know (as well as we can) who they are. I'm even happy for us to send resources out there to help out.

However the best solution I've seen to this whole mess doesn't revolve around letting refugees into anyone's country - it involves giving them their own country somewhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...the-refugees-Give-them-their-own-country.html

Sees the most sensible suggestion so far to me.

Like Israel? Because that was a huge success.

What about the 60s with all the Indians coming from Africa (huh huh, I know, but you know what I mean) and since then with all the immigration that we've always had.

Frankly, I feel that we're still in financial shit (what ever that means) we're overstating the immigration problem (Obviously) and within the next 30 years and the Syrian & Iraqi populace have settled in, we'll just see them as the newer Muslims as the ones who have settled in the past 15 years or so have settled in and are no longer seen as the 'fresh immigrants'.

 

[Bodhi]

Never said immigration was a bad thing, you'd have to be fairly retarded to see all immigration as a bad thing. However, as with all things, too much is just as bad as too little (see Rotherham, Tower Hamlets, many areas in Sweden now and most of France). Hence my position on economic migrants.

 

[Gwadien]

Never said immigration was a bad thing, you'd have to be fairly retarded to see all immigration as a bad thing. However, as with all things, too much is just as bad as too little (see Rotherham, Tower Hamlets, many areas in Sweden now and most of France). Hence my position on economic migrants.

Economic migrants, I get.

Germany has the right approach, they're setting up tents in the parks, for gods sake, imagine the impact that'd have on the city centre, but life > how desirable an area is.

As for Iceland, 10,000 Icelanders have just announced that they'd happily have some Aslyum seekers living with them, that's out of a population of 300,000.

I love Iceland.

 

[DaGaffer]

Economic migrants, I get.

Germany has the right approach, they're setting up tents in the parks, for gods sake, imagine the impact that'd have on the city centre, but life > how desirable an area is.

As for Iceland, 10,000 Icelanders have just announced that they'd happily have some Aslyum seekers living with them, that's out of a population of 300,000.

I love Iceland.

Me too. But let's face it, Iceland needs all the genetic diversity it can get.

 

[Gwadien]

Me too. But let's face it, Iceland needs all the genetic diversity it can get.

Inb4 Iceland invades Damascus in 50 years time due to a heir claimant.

 

[old.user4556]

Possibly useful for this thread.

Source: Reuters

 

[Bodhi]

Economic migrants, I get.

Germany has the right approach, they're setting up tents in the parks, for gods sake, imagine the impact that'd have on the city centre, but life > how desirable an area is.

As for Iceland, 10,000 Icelanders have just announced that they'd happily have some Aslyum seekers living with them, that's out of a population of 300,000.

I love Iceland.

Great! Has anyone totted up how many Icelanders would rather they didn't? Or, much like the rest of Europe it seems, does their opinion not count?

 

[Gwadien]

Great! Has anyone totted up how many Icelanders would rather they didn't? Or, much like the rest of Europe it seems, does their opinion not count?

My point is that 10,000 said they would, out of 300,000, I doubt we'd get that percentage in the UK.

 

[Bodhi]

My point is that 10,000 said they would, out of 300,000, I doubt we'd get that percentage in the UK.

Erm, that's 3% of the population. You don't think 3% of the British population would happily say yes?

 

[Gwadien]

Erm, that's 3% of the population. You don't think 3% of the British population would happily say yes?

I don't think so, nope.

 

[Embattle]

I support the system used properly, abuse of the system should be dealt with quickly but in the end there will be a increasing number of people who'll say no to everything.

 

[Bodhi]

I don't think so, nope.

Woah, seems your faith in the British Population has no end.


Or beginning for that matter.

 

[Gwadien]

Woah, seems your faith in the British Population has no end.


Or beginning for that matter.

Yeah....

I've always thought about living in a Scandinavian country or Germany when I qualify, I think this humanitarian crisis more or less supports my thinking.