A thought for us all. Should we refuse asylum to anyone arriving at our ports on the basis that they must have passes through a safe country on their way. Eg UK, Continental Europe, USA, Canada.
In return we will accept our fair share of asylum seekers via the United Nations refugee structures.
How do you turn this into a poll?
Yes we should.
I've been proposing a solely pro-active refugee policy for years.
Skin Flicks: Time for a new immigration and asylum system
Please sign the petition to establish a national day of celebration in honour of the vision of the United Irishmen!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
While I have a certain sympathy for that view it would probably place a disproportionate responsibility on neighboring non-island States, if you know what I mean. The fact is we can never really get asylum seekers other than those who have already passed through a "safe" country. We don't really have direct flights to proper asylum producing countries.Originally Posted by eurosceptic
If we could ensure that the UN Programme refugee settlement method was done on an equitable basis than possibly that would be a good way to go.
I wouldn't say we have no direct flights to asylum producing countries.
We have flights to Turkey, where Kurds and even Armenians might have some valid claim on asylum. We also have flights to Russia and Moldova, both of which have their human rights issues. And there are flights to Abu Dhabi, where people can end up religiously persecuted if they convert from Islam.
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36
I agree with the concept of accepting asylum seekers only via the UN. It would put an end to this wave of immigration, the controversy that follows it and the negitive implications it has for genuine asylum seekers.
Possibly, but it could all have been avoided if we had handled it properly in the first instance.
Sorry, thats true. In terms of the major producing countries we don't though. The whole african continent, bar probably Eqypt, Iraq, Iran, Southern Asia etc.
I worked with people who were granted asylum in Canada on 2 occasions. Both had escaped from their homelands where their lives were under real threat. Both of them were working in lower paid jobs than they held in their homeland. One guy spent 2 years in a camp in Germany and moved to Canada simply because they were the first country to offer him asylum. If we restricted asylum to genuine refugees, people would have no problem in accepting them and the anti - immigrant brigade would be shown up for what they are.
On the contrary, if we resricted asylum to genuine refugees, it would show-up the open-borders brigade for what they are; a bunch of disastrous twats who've been wrong all along and who's utterly failed asylum experiment has finally been over-turned by popular demand. And about time too.
Try deporting the remaining failed asylum seekers ( of whom there are 750,000+ in the UK alone ) before you start preaching to the rest of us about the "anti immigrant brigade".
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote