Asylum Seeker Can Stay

Brooker_Dave

marleyboy wrote: »

I like the US policy of immigration, one strike and your out, no matter how trivial nor what fate awaits you in your homeland. No second chances.

Bit of a cheek though, given that the US is a nation of immigrants, and was founded via ethnic cleansing.

Brooker_Dave

scooby088 wrote: »

Why does everyone assume the BNP is racist

Because they're a bunch of facists who want to boot out anyone who isn't white and of English stock?

*Kat*

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

I agree with that. I wouldn't say I'm all for BNP though. LOL. But, I believe that's the best thing to do. We have to pay for this guy to stay in jail right? I'm intrigued to know how many prisoners aren't British *runs to google*

darkpool

Perhaps I'm not getting it but where are the fascist/ racist policys in the BNP policys? They seem sensible to me.

PS esuhl. In my job we use hindsight every day to prove a point. But we normally call it "evidence".

He was a failed asylum seeker. If he had been kicked out of the country after his failed asylum bid the girl would still be alive.

shammyjack

darkpool wrote: »

tbh looking at the BNP's immigration policy i'm staggered at how sensible it seems. I love the last policy

If this asylum seeker had been kicked out of the country the girl would still be alive.

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;
- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;
- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;
- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;
- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

The most sensible set of policies I have seen all year ! 100% back them all !


shammy

esuhl

darkpool wrote: »

PS esuhl. In my job we use hindsight every day to prove a point. But we normally call it "evidence".

You cannot prove a point using hindsight!!! Hindsight simply gives us facts ("evidence") about a specific case. Hindsight does not come with a rule book allowing us to extrapolate every individual incident to a universal point or principle!

For example, consider the following:

• Person X is unjustly suffering.
• We could easily prevent future suffering by granting asylum.
• The costs to us of granting asylum are relatively small.
• The benefits of granting asylum, to Person X at least, are relatively large.

In such a case we may grant asylum. However, if Person X then murders 1000 locals, we can say that our judgement of the low cost of granting asylum was, in this case, incorrect, and had we been able to predict that, our decision to grant asylum would be different.

We have absolutely no information on which to base a general point or principle, however! From an ethical point of view, we could not have reasonably predicted Person X's murderous streak, and even in hindsight we would have been wrong to deny him asylum at the time because when we made the decision, we could not have anticipated his future behaviour.

As another example, imagine that Person Y randomly bursts into a house killing the occupants. It is later revealed that the occupants were all guilty of genocide and that by killing them, Person Y has prevented thousands of future murders. Would you seriously refer to hindsight and say, "That proves that we ought to legalise random killings.", or that it proves that "Person Y has done no wrong."? It's the intention of Person Y and how reasonable their assessment of risk is that determine whether someone has acted morally.

If I drive recklessly yet injure no one, I have still behaved immorally. If I drive cautiously, yet kill a girl who jumped in front of me without warning, I may well have behaved ethically. Of course, if I had been deported, the girl would stil be alive. Does that make it right to deport me for a crime that I haven't committed yet? Should we make new laws to ban thoughtcrime?

darkpool wrote: »

He was a failed asylum seeker. If he had been kicked out of the country after his failed asylum bid the girl would still be alive.

So he was a failed asylum seeker who should have left the country? In that case he was an illegal immigrant and (legally) should have been deported regardless of whether he committed any crime. The residential status and criminal aspects of this case appear to be completely separate.

darkpool

So you never use hindsight to affect future decisions? You never use the benefit of your experience to make better decisions?

Surely the level of crime commited by asylum seekers is one of the factors to be considered when deciding on the asylum system?

On an emotional level do you not think the failed asylum seeker should be kicked out the country? He had already been banned for driving twice then he knocks the girl down. You really think he will contribute to the UK?

WhiteHorse

scooby088 wrote: »

Why does everyone assume the BNP is racist, their views are not mine and i know nothing of their policies. and i probably say most people on this thread don't know either ...

True, and now take it further by asking just how many Lib/Lab/Con/Other voters actually know the policies of the parties for whom they vote?

Very few.

PhylPho

scooby088 wrote: »

Why does everyone assume the BNP is racist, their views are not mine and i know nothing of their policies. and i probably say most people on this thread don't know either the media tag them as racist and know nothing of their policies. We have freedom of expression and anyone with racist or any other views have that right guaranteed.

Er, Scooby. . . If, as you say, you know nothing of their policies. . . how do you know their views are not yours?

tony6403

WhiteHorse wrote: »

True, and now take it further by asking just how many Lib/Lab/Con/Other voters actually know the policies of the parties for whom they vote?

Very few.

Exactly , particularly when they studiously don't tell you.
When did the Labour Party inform the electorate about the very profound effect that their "multi-cultural" experimentation would have on this Country.
As part of that ill-conceived policy we are not now allowed to even fully express our views without the fear of prosecution.
Democracy should provide a mandate that is the will of the people.
Sadly it doesn't.
No wonder that we have such a vast budget deficit. We can't afford to provide services and infrastructure for the indigenous community let alone all the influx.