Why was IMMMIGRATION ignored in the budget>?

aliballi

dylansmum wrote: »

Asylum seekers make up 0.025% of migratration into the Uk.

The majority of the worlds 8 million refugees are in Africa and Asai - not Europe

There are more applicationals for asylum in 15 other industrialised nations than the Uk.

Asylum seekers (wanting refugee status) do NOT come here by choice - they are fleeing from, rather than to, a country. Seekers from Kenya, for example, do NOT generally have detailed knowledge of the Uk - just as we may not have detailed knowledge of, say, Kenya's health care system.

They can't claim benefits and can't work. We slam families in to detention centres (chilling places).

Should seekers not get right to leave and are not deported then remember: this means if they go underground they can't use the NHS, work, get housing and, if arrested and found to be illegal, are deported.

All these facts can be found via various sources - Refugee Council, World health Org, even the damn far right migration watch can't dispute these figures.

A close friend of mine is a solictor for aslum seekers- it is HARD to get refugee status as it is HARD to prove torture and rape in the context of complex political situations: Kenya springs to mind.

Meanwhile, there are no borders in terms of global capitalism. This means there are no fixed jobs EVER in the global economy this means there are NO fixed 'British jobs.' -

But economic refugees rather than asylum seekers, which are very different do choose this country over others, because of our social security system & social housing.

Personally, I think economic refugees should only be here if they can support themselves, including housing in the private sector & if they break the law it should be good bye & no thanks.

I'm not against people from other countries while us Brits seem to love countries like Spain, but if you choose to live here I think it should be understood that we are an English speaking christian country & you should respect that & if thats a problem don't come here.

StevieJ

dervish wrote: »

what unites British people? :

The English language for one (or it should) - there is no excuse for 2nd or 3rd generation Pakistani families not using English.

Will you come and tell those Welshies near me

tomterm8

ninky wrote: »

sorry not true. a successful asylum claim will generally lead to refugee status which grants you a british passport. which is for life. if your claim is successful you will also get benefits backdated to the date you entered the country.

i hate to say this because i know it feeds into the xenophobic attitudes of some here but i know many asylumseekers who having claimed their life is in danger if returning home on getting their british passport immediately head back to their own country for a visit. and do so on a regular basis from there on.

Refugee status is not permanant. This is the relevant law on the matter.

convention_relating_to_the_status_of_Regugees wrote:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A (I) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality;[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](6) Being a person who has no nationality he is, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence;[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A (I) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to return to the country of his former habitual residence.[/FONT]

There are a lot of other exceptions on who can be a refugee.

endure

i8change wrote: »

Are you suggesting slaves of the empire chose to fight for their masters?
If you know history you know they fought with little effect and their casualties were light even compared to ours in WW2, never mind ours in WW1.

Approximately 87,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during WWII. They won 30 Victoria Crosses.

endure

dervish wrote: »

endure wrote: »

maybe you shoudl change your callsign picture to the flag of the Indian Navy, becuase your snide, anti-British comments shame the use of the Red Ensign. :mad:

I use the Red Ensign as an avatar because I spent 10 years sailing under it. My comments are neither snide nor anti-British. Having spent 10 years visiting every continent but Antarctica has removed what trace there was of the Little Englander in me.

harryhound

aliballi wrote: »

My guess is immigration was not mentioned in the budget because is not a budget issue.

I, your long lost cousin umpteen times removed, with my extended ragged family; having recently been repossessed as a result of redundancy; come knocking on your door asking for a roof over our heads....................You owe me as a fellow member of that group of bipedal primates called homo sapiens...............

"Oh welcome do come in; let me kill the fatted calf........Its party time".

Or are you really thinking "what are we going to do with them? Where are we going to put them? (perhaps our two kids could bunk up together?). How are we going to afford it? (I wonder if we are too late to cancel this summer's holiday and get our deposit back?)".

I think that is a pretty good analogy for what will happen over the next dozen years, exacerbated by the recession in the world economy.

Harry.

dylansmum

i8change wrote: »

Blimey, how many safe countries are there between here and Africa? They must like walking. I thought we signed an agreement that specified "asylum seekers should go to the nearest safe country," not move continents!
Anyhow, where was the asylum for our grandparents when they were called up to the front line? They had to run at machine guns, supposedly, for our security! If their countries are that crap why can't they fight for them like we had to? We deserve a decent safe country after our grandparents efforts. To fill it with Muslims is a betrayal of that effort. Did they not notice the partition of India and the upheaval that caused? If they were rejected in their own country what made the powers that be think everything would be hunky dory if they moved here!

Safe countries - depends on where you leave from. The applications here are small compared to African countries: most do go to African countries! Thye are sometimes moved out again. They often do not know where they will end up.

Must like walking - nice to be flippant living in the Uk, isn't it?

Muslims??? Where did that come from?

I have no religion - wanna throw me out?


Asylum seekers HAVE often fought for democracy and then found their families killed and tortured. The IMF control many African states which has led to increased poverty and more war/conflict: Zambia, Angola one in five kids dies before the age of five due to privatised water deals - blame global capitalism, not refugees. This is why they leave - to protect others. Read around the topic and speak to asylum seekers perhaps?

There are NO FIXED JOBS in the economy thus no immigrants can take British jobs!

For me I say OPEN THE BORDERS.

dylansmum

aliballi wrote: »

But economic refugees rather than asylum seekers, which are very different do choose this country over others, because of our social security system & social housing.

Personally, I think economic refugees should only be here if they can support themselves, including housing in the private sector & if they break the law it should be good bye & no thanks.

I'm not against people from other countries while us Brits seem to love countries like Spain, but if you choose to live here I think it should be understood that we are an English speaking christian country & you should respect that & if thats a problem don't come here.

And?

I am not a Christian - wanna throw me out?

Generali

dylansmum wrote: »

And?

I am not a Christian - wanna throw me out?

Boudicca (Boadacea) was possibly the first British heroine. She wasn't Christian and was (AFAIK) 100% British.

Cleaver

dervish wrote: »

The English language for one (or it should) - there is no excuse for 2nd or 3rd generation Pakistani families not using English.

To be fair Derv, there are many of your posts that would barely be classed as English.