Gay asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon win appeal

Harry_Powell

Welcome back to the Economy board NDG!

Blacklight

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with house prices, the economy, etc.

Well, as I said in the OP, it could mean an influx of new people on top of migrant workers here for work, which the government are looking to put a cap on.

Also (somewhere in the thread) I also said some bloke on the radio who was in some organisation with pink in the name (I forget what he did or who he was) said that even if they weren't gay and they just said they were you couldn't send them back because when they finally get back to the country where they came from they'd step of the airplane and go home and when they got inside their mother got scared and said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air'. I whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said "Fresh" and there were dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare but I thought, naw, forget it, yo holmes to Bel-Air. I pulled up to the house about seven or eight and said to the cabbie "Yo holmes smell ya later." Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the prince of Bel-Air.

Dunno what the rest of the thread is about.

C_Mababejive

Here you are...that odious little prol Peter Tatchel is telling the whole world where gay people can get asylum advice in the UK. Presumably he is rolling out the red carpet on our behalf?


He also gives some helpful advice on how to resist lawful deportation.

Maybe we should deport him to Uganda where he can set up his own rights office.


http://www.gayrightsuganda.org/index.php/asylum-advice-for-lgbt-refugees

Procrastinator333

Asylum applications are running at about 20k per year. Of those 1bou 9k are rejected.

So about 11k a year. Not exactly the big number it is made out to be.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mig0510.pdf

Yes in an ideal world we would have a system that only allowed the genuine to claim asylum, but this is the real world and ultimately a society has to make a choice.

A) A sytem that is too lax and lets those not worthy of asylum slip thorugh

A system that is too tight and ends up sending innocent and vulnerable people off to be tortured and killed.

Personally I prefer option A. If you prefer B, that is your call, but I just think it is easy to get heated about the faker and forget the implications of having a system that would keep them out.

neverdespairgirl

Ditto wrote: »

Asylum seekers need to be housed, they also need money to live on. Who pays for them to do so?

The taxpayer, via National Asylum-Seekers Support Service.

neverdespairgirl

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Asylum applications are running at about 20k per year. Of those 1bou 9k are rejected.

So about 11k a year. Not exactly the big number it is made out to be.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mig0510.pdf

.

To be fair, that's 11k claims. A lot more people, wives / children etc are usually dependants on claims.

chucky

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

A) A sytem that is too lax and lets those not worthy of asylum slip thorugh

A system that is too tight and ends up sending innocent and vulnerable people off to be tortured and killed.

Personally I prefer option A. If you prefer B, that is your call, but I just think it is easy to get heated about the faker and forget the implications of having a system that would keep them out.

i agree with you about option A being the better option.

would it not be the case that because Option A is available; there would be more asylum seekers knowing how to exploit the system?

Procrastinator333

chucky wrote: »

i agree with you about option A being the better option.

would it not be the case that because Option A is available; there would be more asylum seekers knowing how to exploit the system?

I think option a is pretty much what is there now. I think you only have to read the mail to know there are plenty who take the !!!! already. Maybe more because of this will come, who knows, last 4 quarters there have been lower numbers of asylum seekers than years gone by, but really that number is pretty flat.

As far as population growth goes it is a bit of a non issue compared to natural change and immigration.

Procrastinator333

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

To be fair, that's 11k claims. A lot more people, wives / children etc are usually dependants on claims.

Very true! Realised after I had posted it I had neglected that line. in the nd decided to see how long it would take to be pulled up on it! But still, call it 25k then, compared to the otheR 375k of population growth in the last year it isn't a big number

chucky

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Very true! Realised after I had posted it I had neglected that line. in the nd decided to see how long it would take to be pulled up on it! But still, call it 25k then, compared to the otheR 375k of population growth in the last year it isn't a big number

someone will now tell you that foreigners have more than the average 2.5 children....