Asylum Seeker Can Stay

JOHN1982

neilwoods wrote: »

How about drawing the line where illegal immigrants keep committing acts of crime and violence who show total disregard to the UK law.

As for speculating if he was a genuine asylum seeker and being his first offence, then yes he should be deported back to northern Iraq.

He wasn't an illegal immigrant, he was a failed asylum seeker.

I think you're missing my point though. I'm saying that imagine a totally different case where someone from, IDK, Zimbabwe has fled because they face certain death because of their personal circumstances. He rightfully claims asylum here. He then commits a crime (not necessarily this one). Should he be deported to face certain death?

darkpool wrote:

There are bad people in society. I think you have to take away their rights. Or maybe you think we should let all the criminals out of prison? After all the right to liberty is enshrined in article 5 of the Human Rights Act

There certainly are, and I agree he seems to be one. But I'm saying the fact he's a failed asylum seeker shouldn't come into it. I'm asking at what point do you strip people of these human rights? If you get caught travelling in a vehicle without your seatbelt on, do we take your human rights off you as you're a criminal?

Nice try with the whole article 5 thing BTW. Actually read article 5 and you'll realise how ridiculous that statement is.

leveller2911 wrote:

Question: How many asylum seekers would you say are single males?
Answer:Probably somewhere in the region of 90-98% minimum

Question: If you were a Genuine asylum seeker would you flee your country of origin alone ?, without your wife? children,parents?.

FACT: Saddam Hussein butchered men,women and children he made no allowances for sex or age.Does this ring any alarm bells to you?.
Like I said before the vast majority are economic migrants.

If I was a genuine asylum seeker hell would freeze over before I left my family in danger.

Not much point trying to tar me with the Daily mail reader badge as it won't stick.

IMO if a "genuine" asylum seeker with a family bought over with him murdered that young girl then he alone should be in prison for life(as should any white,black,yellow or green person born in the UK)his family should be allowed to stay UNTIL their native country is deemed a safe one.

We gave thousands of Huguenots sanctury during the 16th century, Thousands of Jews during ww2 we managed all of this without the need of the Human Rights act.How many criminal scumbags including the one in question have used these laws to their own benefit? ..

As for saying in a previous post" if you don't like the law then leave the country" can I remind you the laws are made by Governments who do NOT have a mandate to govern.Why should people leave ? If something is wrong then it needs putting right, the problem is the UK pubilc are spineless unless directly affected.

Nu -labour won elections having been voted in by 1/10th of the British Population eligable to vote so this is No democracy we live in.I use Nu-Labour as an example as the Tories are the same.Yes we can blame the system that makes the laws and until the British public get off their backsides and force a change we will always be Governed by a Party that has No demacratic madate to Govern.

Honestly, where did you get that first figure from? "Lies, damn lies and statistics!" Without some proof of this, the next few paragraphs of your statement are nonsense which you're basing on the assumptions made from a handfull of stories about asylum seekers that have made the press.

Can I also point out that when the Jews fled here from the holocaust they were by no means welcomed. The press went about attacking them as Nazi sabatours and spies and, shock horror, saying they should be deported! I wonder if every Huguenot and Jew were model citizens, never to commit a crime?

The last part of your post I actually partially agree with. People don't seem to care about politics until it suits them. I agree that everyone should vote, or keep shut about anything remotely political (which is pretty much every waking second of life). The government, like it or not, were voted in to power by the system in place. Perhaps more people should get in to politics and try and make a difference. But if people can't be @rsed to vote, then they certainly won't do that. Anyway that's a bit off-topic.

ljonski wrote:

here is another addition to our society

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11998808

Brilliant. Now he's in the same class as a terrorist trying to blow up city centres.
(I mean, I know he's not from this country, has funny coloured skin and both articles have the words "failed to deport" in them, but surely that's a leap for anyone!?)

JOHN1982

PopeSock wrote: »

If only he'd been stoned, then the Daily Mail would have got the trifecta of Asylum Seekers, Think Of The Children and Cannabis Horror. The latter of which bugs the hell out of me - far far more accidents are caused by booze, yet they don't make the front pages.

Ah yes, the Daily Mail shock headline;

The_Daily_Mail* wrote:

SNOW, there is SNOW! Immigrant snow! Immigrant, gypsy snow! Immigrant, gypsy, !!!!!phile snow!

*OK, so it was Russell Brand taking the mick out of the Mail, but still, it could be true! :rotfl:


*edit*
Whoa there ... why has the proper term for a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children been exclaimed out? Surely that's not a swear-word in society now? Can I say !!!!, balls, !!!!! and !!!? I was in a farmyard when I saw a hen being chased by a !!!! whilst an !!! watched on. Meanwhile a !!!!! cat played with some balls of string.

*edit 2*
Ha ha ha, blatantly not!

marleyboy

I'm asking at what point do you strip people of these human rights?

Quite simple really, the very INSTANT they strip somebody else of their human rights!

darkpool

If an asylum seeker commits a serious crime like murder/ rape I think it reasonable he is deported. If that means he goes back to a country where he is tortured or killed i'm not going to lose any sleep over it. tbh I think murderers/ criminals shoud be killed in this country too.

I think it's fair to say 90% of asylum seekers are male. When you see the asylum seekers in the camps in france trying to hide in lorries heading for the UK they are all male.

Regarding the Human Rights Act, it does seem that only terrorists and criminals get the benefit from it. I think it reasonable that in a parliamentary democracy that this Act be reviewed.

avinabacca

To be honest, it's actually no bad thing to have the shouty-shouty, knee-jerking types busy and vocal on places like message boards, the Daily Mail and the snug of the local boozer - at least they're confined there in one place and not running about causing serious damage.

Here's a question, though - if they're really the "silent majority", or however they wish to refer to themselves, how come they never seem to get into a position to make changes to these hideously liberal, traitorous laws? Endlessly puzzling, that one.....

leveller2911

esuhl wrote: »

Where on earth do you get those figures? Did you make them up? Many assylum seekers come from cultures in which women are expected to stay at home if they don't have a chaperone or husband to escort them, so you won't see as many women in public.

I don't have true figures ,but does anyone? I see many asylum seekers around Hastings and yes they do stand out as they walk around in groups and many stayed at the Queens Hotel on the seafront.You never saw any women at all.I also had over a dozen jump out of the back of a lorry by my workshop all of whom were men.

I also do a fair bit of work around Dover too and its the same there.With all of the documenteries on the subject of asylum seekers you very rarely see any women.Even the "Jungle" outside of Calais you very rarely see any women so where are they?????.

Sorry but from my own personal experience the women do not travel with their men......

leveller2911

avinabacca wrote: »

To be honest, it's actually no bad thing to have the shouty-shouty, knee-jerking types busy and vocal on places like message boards, the Daily Mail and the snug of the local boozer - at least they're confined there in one place and not running about causing serious damage.

Here's a question, though - if they're really the "silent majority", or however they wish to refer to themselves, how come they never seem to get into a position to make changes to these hideously liberal, traitorous laws? Endlessly puzzling, that one.....

Nu -Labour openly admit their "Social Engineering" policies, the political elite used its power in the last 13 yrs to change society to be all inclusive.

The reason this has been able to carry on and do so much damage to our society is down to apathy of the masses, government bribery and blackmail by way of the tax credits system basically Labour bought the elections threatening the withdrawl of tax credits if the Tories got back in.The truth is a small team of political elite, highly educated (supposedly) used the British public for a social experiment.Remember the headline "Jobs for the boys" and Tony's Cronies" ? they weren't made up you know.

By the way what pecentage of the population read the Daily mail? your typical Lefty will always shout about the Daily Mail reader but in truth they are a very small minority of the population.

10%??? I Don't read any newspapers......apart from the local rag;)

avinabacca

leveller2911 wrote: »

Nu -Labour openly admit their "Social Engineering" policies, the political elite used its power in the last 13 yrs to change society to be all inclusive.

Would really like to see evidence of this if you're in the know (and I don't mean this in a "I don't believe you" sense, genuinely in a "want to learn more" sense) - post a link or PM me?

Thanks

darkpool

Here is one of the BNP's policies on immigration. For an "extremist" party this policy seems to me quite sensible. It certainly seems to reflect the feelings of most of the replies on this thread.

Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;

PhylPho

marleyboy wrote: »

Quite simple really, the very INSTANT they strip somebody else of their human rights!

Ah. Commonsense, succinctly expressed.

But what a pity about the way this thread has been so frequently diverted by smug remarks about the Daily Mail and its readers when neither that newspaper nor its audience has anything remotely to do with the facts of what's gone on here.

I'm happy to welcome anyone into my home who chooses not to steal from me or violently harass me and mine. I'm also happy to arrange for anyone indulging in such thuggish behaviour to be chucked out.

For reasons so far unexplained, several posters here seem content to place sanctimony above safety. Nobility is admirable so long as it's not plain daft.