Gay asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon win appeal

Harry_Flashman

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Not for much longer

Well there's a bonus - might discourage some of these parasites.

Why can't they be sent back and simply not indulge in homosexual acts? Isn't this a case of them causing their own problem?

ILW

I thought The Gay Asylum Seekers were an Irish punk band. May be mistaken though.
Orignally formed by Ben Dover and Phil McCavity

carolt

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

As the UK is surrounded by safe countries, I often wonder why those claiming asylum travel through the safe countries to get to the UK, instead of stopping in the first safe country they get to. Any idea why your father did that Carol?

As to why modern asylum seekers choose the UK, I'm in no position to know, but I would imagine it's a combination of where they already know people, and where will accept them. The 'first country you come to' bit doesn't really apply, as we live in an age of air travel - the first country is the one you get off the aeroplane in, I suppose.

As for my father, he arrived in the UK in 1939 on the eve of war, as a refugee from Nazi Germany. Assuming you have a basic knowledge of history, you may be aware that German Jewish children didn't exactly have the world welcoming them and offering them asylum in the country of their choice. He would have been very, very, very happy to go anywhere that would have given him a visa; other family members ended up in Cuba, Shanghai - anywhere, basically. They were the lucky ones. Many members of my family ended up in concentration camps. The lucky ones survived that. Had he had a visa for France, say, which he travelled through, I daresay he would have ended up there, and probably via that ended up in a concentration camp - I am fortunate that that was not the case.

As it was, he came to the UK because (a) the UK operated a small Kindertransport scheme, which rescued German Jewish children and brought them to the UK (not their parents, though). The UK was one of the very few countries which recognised the dangers for Jews under Nazism and accepted a small number of refugees. (b) his uncle lived here and so was able to guarantee that he would support him financially and house him, without which visas were not given. Not only were no benefits available to refugees, they had to prove actively that they would not be a burden on the state in any way. They were also unable to undertake any job that any native Brit would want - only the very lowliest job that no native Brit could be found to do.

He wasn't allowed to join the army as an 'enemy alien' (in fact he was locked up as such in the Isle of Man in 1939-40), but despite that, has never, ever for one minute ceased to be immensely grateful to this country for taking him in and saving his life. I should add he has never, ever claimed a day of unemployment or any other benefit, and has done his best to repay the UK for their goodness in taking him in, by contributing to the UK economy positively. Research shows that of the 10,000 children who came on the Kindertransport, they have make exceptional contributions to the UK economically, culturally and in many other ways.

I think it's far too easy to assume these days that all asylum seekers are bogus, or that they all come here just to improve their economic status at our expense. Sadly, there are still many parts of the world where people's lives are at risk because of their religion, politics, or in the case of the OP, sexual orientation.

I think we should all be immensely proud of the stance that the UK takes on this, and took back then. As stated above, it is the mark of a civilsed society that we do.

ILW

As far as I know, the recent case did not take into account the mens ability to support themselves financially in this country.

carolt

No. And there are arguments that it should. Although equally there are arguments that it shouldn't.

As a civilised society, I think we should put life above money.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

As a civilised society, I think we should put life above money.

Not the take you have on the large family's on benefits threads though is it.;)

ILW

carolt wrote: »

No. And there are arguments that it should. Although equally there are arguments that it shouldn't.

As a civilised society, I think we should put life above money.

We do not put life above money on items such as cancer drugs. There have to be limits, it's is just a matter of where the line is drawn.

chewmylegoff

in principle it seems reasonable enough. but it's just impossible to monitor. it's not like you can go through their CD collection to see if they've got any jimmy somerville. i suppose time will tell as to whether this gets ridiculously abused.

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

in principle it seems reasonable enough. but it's just impossible to monitor. it's not like you can go through their CD collection to see if they've got any jimmy somerville. i suppose time will tell as to whether this gets ridiculously abused.

I did smile at an earlier post that asked whether they would be deported if caught with a woman.

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

Not the take you have on the large family's on benefits threads though is it.;)

Eh? I hardly think I'm with the White Horse on starving them to death!

I don't recommend people on benefits being unable to afford essentials - certainly not. I'm not in favour of them 'earning' more than people in work, though, no.