Nigel Farage

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

Who said anything to the contrary?

Perhaps no-one in this thread, but there are certainly those, in Oz and elsewhere, that are of the opinion that anyone who arrives in Oz (or in Europe) of whatever origins and by whatever means should automatically be allowed to stay...

[mistermack]

What on earth could be wrong with sending illegal immigrants back home?
The clue is in the name. ( illegal ).

Nothing wrong with that, except asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

So all an illegal economic migrant has to do is say "I claim asylum !!" Literally. And you instantly buy it.

With you in charge, every western country would be flooded within days.
Be we already knew that. You're all self-righteousness and no answers.
It's a dead easy, lazy kind of attitude. Dodge problems, don't face them.
Hard decisions? Not for you. Take the fucking easy way out and fuck the people that it causes hardship for.

[Brian Peacock]

What on earth could be wrong with sending illegal immigrants back home?
The clue is in the name. ( illegal ).

Nothing wrong with that, except asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

So all an illegal economic migrant has to do is say "I claim asylum !!" Literally. And you instantly buy it.

With you in charge, every western country would be flooded within days.
Be we already knew that. You're all self-righteousness and no answers.
It's a dead easy, lazy kind of attitude. Dodge problems, don't face them.
Hard decisions? Not for you. Take the fucking easy way out and fuck the people that it causes hardship for.

That's a bit of a stretch. Simply asking for asylum isn't and shouldn't be a rubber-stamp for entry and/or citizenship. Hermit is pointing out that asylum-seekers are not illegal immigrants and it's silly to conflate the two, even if and when some asylum-seekers gain entrance to the country illegally in order to make their claim.

The UK requires that asylum-seekers make a genuine attempt to register their application in the country they are leaving and not when they arrive in the UK. This isn't always possible, particularly if one is persona non grata or perhaps where coming out of a UK Embassy or consulate gets you or your family disappeared in an unmarked van.

Hopefully the asylum system is robust enough to recognise and take into account the circumstances of the claimants, such that it might mitigate a possible illegal entry, and if an application fails claimant can and should be dealt with accordingly. However, fears that some asylum-seekers might be making it up isn't a reason to restrict the ability of foreign nationals to claim asylum or to appeal the decision.

[Hermit]

What on earth could be wrong with sending illegal immigrants back home?
The clue is in the name. ( illegal ).

Nothing wrong with that, except asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

So all an illegal economic migrant has to do is say "I claim asylum !!" Literally. And you instantly buy it.

Are you wilfully twisting what I said or are you as thick as a brick? There's a difference between asylum seekers and illegal migrants who pretend they are asylum seekers. I know that for sure. You seem to lump asylum seekers and illegal immigrants together. Like if asylum seekers don't settle down in filthy tents just beyond the borders of the strife torn country they are fleeing from they must be illegal immigrants. This joint really is turning into a cesspool for xenophobic and sexist right wingers. Next thing you'll get into global warming denialism, I bet. Oh...

[Svartalf]

it's a real problem, economic migrants are not stupid and do try to pass off as real refugees

[Hermit]

it's a real problem, economic migrants are not supid and do try to pass off as real refugees

Yes.

[mistermack]

What on earth could be wrong with sending illegal immigrants back home?
The clue is in the name. ( illegal ).

Nothing wrong with that, except asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

So all an illegal economic migrant has to do is say "I claim asylum !!" Literally. And you instantly buy it.

Are you wilfully twisting what I said or are you as thick as a brick? There's a difference between asylum seekers and illegal migrants who pretend they are asylum seekers.

And what's the difference? If they say, "I claim asylum", they ARE asylum seekers.
You can be both an illegal migrant, AND an asylum seeker. And nearly all of them are.
You think I'm thick, but you don't seem to be able to grasp the obvious.

A child could manage what you are struggling with.

As far as I'm concerned, they are at least 99% bogus. And you don't let 99 cheats in, just to accommodate one person who's genuine. Especially if they ALL ignored safe countries, in order to get to yours.

[pErvinalia]

"As far as I'm concerned..."

How the fuck would you even have the first clue?

[Hermit]

As far as I'm concerned, they are at least 99% bogus.

That's why I said you equate every asylum seeker with illegal alien as soon as he/she tries to enter their patch. 99% is near enough to it. It makes you a xenophobic fuck whose views on the matter are indistinguishable from the Interviewee I linked to here; a xenophobic fuck.

[mistermack]

As far as I'm concerned, they are at least 99% bogus.

That's why I said you equate every asylum seeker with illegal alien as soon as he/she tries to enter their patch. 99% is near enough to it. It makes you a xenophobic fuck whose views on the matter are indistinguishable from the Interviewee I linked to here; a xenophobic fuck.

At least, I'm still ahead of you.
I would rather be a fuck than a cunt.

[mistermack]

"As far as I'm concerned..."

How the fuck would you even have the first clue?

Ha ha.
That from a person who invents their own facts, based on what they would LIKE to be true.
You make a fool of yourself, and then call others clueless.
There's no fool like a self-made fool.

[Brian Peacock]

This could benefit from a healthy dollop of facts.

Refusal rates for asylum applications are high. The majority of asylum application are made by people who have arrived in the UK - c.82% in 2014-15. The refusal rate for the year ending March 2015 was c.60%, meaning that that year c.40% of applications were granted, a jump of c.20% from the previous year due to the Syrian crisis and the wars in Eritrea and South Sudan. Not all successful asylum applicants receive indefinite leave to remain - some are granted the conditional 'leave to remain' or 'discretionary leave to remain' and some are offered 'humanitarian protection' status. Of those granted some form of leave all must wait at least five years before being eligible to apply for full UK citizenship. The status of any asylum applicant is subject to review by the Home Office at any time. The return rate among successful applicants is relatively high at c.20% returning within five years (although Home Office and Immigration Service figures have been inconsistently maintained over time and subject to frequents changes in reporting regimes). Nonetheless, for the year ending March 2014 41% of all applicants were returned - the majority being those whose application were refused. Asylum applications (and their dependants) accounted for c.8% of net migration in 2013, and in that year asylum-seekers accounted for less than 0.1% of the population.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 015snr.pdf
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/br ... -uk-asylum

[pErvinalia]

"As far as I'm concerned..."

How the fuck would you even have the first clue?

Ha ha.
That from a person who invents their own facts, based on what they would LIKE to be true.
You make a fool of yourself, and then call others clueless.
There's no fool like a self-made fool.

Again, how the fuck would you have any clue how many are and aren't genuine asylum seekers?

[mistermack]

"As far as I'm concerned..."

How the fuck would you even have the first clue?

Ha ha.
That from a person who invents their own facts, based on what they would LIKE to be true.
You make a fool of yourself, and then call others clueless.
There's no fool like a self-made fool.

Again, how the fuck would you have any clue how many are and aren't genuine asylum seekers?

To be genuine, you seek asylum, not financial advancement.
ie, you are not an economic migrant.
A true asylum seeker would seek asylum at the first opportunity.
Nearly 100% don't.
And more than 99% who seek asylum in the UK, certainly didn't.
That's how the fuck I have more than a just a clue.

[Brian Peacock]

So, putting yourself into the position of an asylum-seeker: if a relative was already living in a country, perhaps even working, as an engineer or a labourer or whatever, wouldn't it make sense to try to get to them even if that country wasn't necessarily the closest? Wouldn't you rather be with people who could show you the ropes, someone you could trust to help you navigate a strange culture, to help with the language, accessing healthcare, or employment or educational resources, etc? Wouldn't you feel safer, more secure, somewhere with an established ex-pat community?