Asylum Seeker Can Stay

diable

If he was going to be deported and loved his family so much then he should take them with him, why wasn't he given that option?

DCFC79

I just think its disgusting/wrong that he should be allowed to stay in the country, he should be kicked out and deported back home, whether or not anything happens to him back home shouldt be our concern since he killed the young girl

esuhl

leveller2911 wrote: »

I don't have true figures ,but does anyone? I see many asylum seekers around Hastings and... 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?????

There aren't going to be any asylum seekers hiding in the back of a lorry or in the "Jungle" near Calais! If they could claim asylum, why would they be there?! They're much more likely to be illegal economic migrants. In families with children, it makes sense that the men come here to work, while the women stay to raise the family. That prevents children from having to sleep rough, risk their lives in transit, and gives the man a better chance of evading the police/immigration. If he manages to find work, he can save more money and return home quicker if he only needs to buy expensive UK food for himself, while the rest of his family can buy food much cheaper locally. And, of course, amonsgt singletons, men are more likely to engage in risky behaviour and more likely to have been educated (and so more likely to find work).

I suspect the majority of illegal immigrants are men, but I can't see why that would be the case for asylum seekers, where women are just as likely to have lived in a "dangerous" area as men, more likely to abused or trafficked, although less likely to be involved in politics (I would have thought).

trumpton

I thought it was fairly widely known that Jack Straw's advisor had claimed that the Labour leaders had wanted large scale immigration in order to force the UK into a multi-cultural society and 'rub the Right's nose in it':

"The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.
Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article6898174.ece


The reality is that Labour are well out of touch with the general feeling about immigration and in any case the wealthy (like MP's) are less adversely affected by it than the poor. The huge number of economic migrants has in turn made people less sympathetic towards genuine asylum seekers. Not that the subject of this thread is in any way a genuine asylum seeker imo.

paddedjohn

QUOTE, JOHN1982

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?


YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES AND YES

PhylPho

The question posed by john1982 was rhetorical.

The thread is about the facts of a specific case.

If someone wishes to propose as an item for debate the treatment of asylum seekers with criminal convictions "but not necessarily this one" then they should be courteous enough to do so as a separate thread.

What is being discussed here is, necessarily, this one.

PhylPho

darkpool wrote: »

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;

Unfortunately, the BNP is to the notion of justice what an elephant is to ballet dancing.

Courts determine who is guilty of committing a crime and courts have been known to be wrong. It sometimes seems there are enough miscarriages of justice in the UK to make the Ku Klux Klan look respectable.

The BNP is also in favour of capital punishment, this despite the fact that it's always the first organisation to decry the fallibility of the courts whenever any of its members gets hauled up. So how come there's no fallibility about the death sentence?

(Oh, right: the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, they were all guilty?)

The BNP is a nauseating affront to civilised life and civilised behaviour, an exploiter of cheap emotions and manipulator of those born several cells short of a fully functioning brain.

What's especially tragic about this current case is that the *facts* show that the individual involved is a self-confessed serial offender, a proven thug with no interest in anything other than his own self. Compared to the uncontested evidence of all that, there's no evidence that this individual faces "certain death" or any other kind of punishment should he be returned to the Kurdish region of Iraq.

But the BNP has no interest in facts, any more than apologists for a supine State have. Both extremes seek to generalise, whilst the rest of us, in the middle, stick to what we know and prefer to deal with on an issue-by-issue basis rather than drawing up Draconian laws on the one hand and get-out-of-jail-free cards on the other.

darkpool

I'll be honest the BNP is really just a protest vote. But they do voice a lot of concerns felt by a lot (most?) people in the UK regarding immigration.

Why label the BNP an "affront to civilised life"? Surely they are only excercising their democratic rights to form a political party? If they were out trashing cars and rioting i bet you'd come on this forum and say they should start a political party to express their views.

How can you say that BNP supporters have not got "fully functioning brains"? It's quite a statement to make, do you have any evidence to back it up? Is that not the type of thing that was said in 1930's Germany about Jews/ gypsys/ East Europeans etc? If I said something like that about an ethnic group I could (quite rightly) get a prison sentence.

The fact remains that a lot of people feel immigration is out of control. I think it safe to say the main political parties seem unable or unwilling to do anything about it. So what do people do? They could feel bad about it or vote BNP as a protest vote.

PhylPho

No offence meant. We'd best agree to disagree on this one -- I don't have time for extremism of any sort, and though a vote for the BNP might well be a vote in protest over an issue (or issues) it's also a vote for a loathsome organisation that is exercising its democratic right to deny democratic rights to others. Not my kind of politics.

trumpton

I honestly don't think that most of the people who voted BNP are racist thugs. They are simply a party who are taking advantage of the frustration of many voters that the then Labour government did not take peoples concern about immigration/asylum seekers seriously.

I doubt that many of the people who voted for them even knew in detail what their policies were. Of course their views are odious, however they try to put a spin on it, but failing to deport the criminal in this thread drives people unthinkingly towards extremist parties.

There is a middle road between the UK being El Dorado for every economic migrant and fake asylum seeker going and the far-right State envisioned by the BNP.