Asylum-seekers treated better

“Passing through safe countries to reach another safe country, aka, "asylum shopping".....

quote/ ASYLUM SEEKERS IN IRELAND CAUGHT 'ASYLUM SHOPPING'
243 Asylum seekers were transferred to other EU states after being caught 'asylum shopping' where they looked for refugee status in 2 or more countries. 40 failed asylum seekers were deported last night, a further 202 opted for help in returning home voluntarily rather than being removed. source: Irish Independent 12/3/10 /unquote

Blatant example of hundreds of thousands? of asylum seekers passing through safe countries to get into the UK .... those asylum seekers who queued up at Calais to make it into the UK - they had found their safety in France - why the need to carry on into the UK.

Successive UK governments did not return the asylum shoppers to France. What's the point in having first safe country rules and laws if our Home Office/UKBA will not implement said rules?

To carry on risking your life to get to the UK after having reached a safe country negates any asylum claim. It proves that the over-riding aim is not safety, since that has already been achieved, but the aim is get to this country. Therefore all those who have done this should be deported without appeal as bogus claims. They are economic migrants - It's theft by deception.”

“"Neither the UN, nor any instrument of international law states that refugees must seek asylum in the first safe country they reach."

I am confused! In many other threads on asylum seekers I have seen that they ARE supposed to seek asylum at the nearest safe country. It will be hard to disprove ColdHardTruth's assertion that they are under no international obligation to do so. However, I am sure that someone here can provide a link to proof that they ARE supposed to go to the nearest place of safety.”

“Here are some of the free benefits asylum seekers get: free furnished homes / free gas and electricity / free NHS treatment / free specs and dental treatment / free education at school or college / free translation services / free legal aid and advice / free mobile 'phones (want proof of that one?) and of course, free cash. The mount of cash given to asylum seekers varies according to their requirements, ie, single, married with children etc.

Comparing asylum seekers with those of our own people receiving Job Seeker Allowance is irrelevant - asylum seekers are foreigners who have chosen to dump themselves in the UK - jobseekers are own people.”

“I remember Nick Griffen winning a debate on Question Time Craig.....not. He also got a second bumhole ripped for him by about the worst interviewer on British radio last week, Nicky Cambell. You can't put Tommie Robinson up, he's looked up till the new year, and the rest of you are stack shearing bonkers anyway.”

“Normal uneducated right wing rubbish with out any substance. Craig's jumps on it I see, fa to much time on his hands you see. No job and no hope.”

“Oh dear, OK, one last time.

Neither the UN, nor any instrument of international law states that refugees must seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. Despite this, EU law does provide for the return of asylum seekers to countries they have transited if those are deemed to have been able to offer protection, so your point is pretty much moot. And on top of that, according the the UN refugee agency, 80% of refugees world-wide do stay closer to home and are accommodated in developing countries, this despite the obviously superior resources available in developed countries.

As for making things as "cushy as possible" for asylum seekers, I personally don't have an objection to refugees who have fled persecution usually with nothing but the clothes on their back to seek refuge in our country being provided with pots and pans and curtains (I sincerely doubt a minimum 20" TV was specified). That's obviously a difference between you and I that for once is a matter of opinion rather than you just being wrong about the facts. However, it is guaranteed in international law that refugees be provided with minimum resources to live in dignity and security.

Finally, I suggest you read the information in the link I posted last in order to fully understand the difference between asylum seekers and immigrants. Your highly uninformed position makes it difficult for me to continue this discussion with you, so I'll just head back to my "fascist money" buddies.

Thanks for the fun.”

“ColdHardTruth.
Oh no, you're not getting away with that tripe!
The Revised Tenancy Agreement was aimed specifically at making things as cushy as possible for these foreign interlopers. It stated in crystal clear terms what asylum seekers were to get from their landlords, like a colour tv, at least 20", with a full colour tv licence, pots, pans , crockery, bedding, carpet, curtains, netting, furniture, beds, the list goes on for three pages!

If asylum seekers aren't immigrants, what the hell are they?! They aren't indigenous, so they must be immigrants!
But while we're on this subject, the UN states that asylum seekers are to go to the nearest safe country. How is that Britain?

This is why there's never been a televised debate on policy between the left and right, they know we'd have it won in 5 minutes.”

“fegghayesman,

Your conspiracy theories about the new world order are fascinating!

A couple of points, however;

The "Revised Tenancy Agreement" you refer to is hard to locate. If you are talking about the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (latest revision that I can find 2001), it is a document that provides basic security standards for all people occupying leased "low-rent" properties that are privately owned. No "favouritism" there... unless my "constipation" obscures my understanding.

Secondly, you appear to be confusing your terms. Immigrants are not under discussion here, asylum seekers are. And given that the right to seek asylum is an absolute one enshrined in international law, it is absolutely not, I'm afraid, the "decision of the British people" whether they should stay or not, but rather the decision of the competent asylum procedures body.

I reiterate that asylum seekers are granted benefits amounting to £36 per week. A useful starting point for the basic facts surrounding asylum can be found at the link below.

http://tinyurl.com/65x2s6o”

“Mr Dulson,
you are right about this overt favouritism toward immigrants from the political establishment in this country, and they get a hell of a lot more than £36 per week!
The aim of this is to break down national allegiance so the agenda of a global group of politicians and financiers can be realised, and its called the new world order.

ColdHardTruth.
Read the Revised Tenancy Agreemant, published by the Home Office under David Blunkett, Labour Home Secretary. This will show you to be the one talking rubbish, but no shock there from someone politically constipated though.
These immigrants shouldn't even be here, that is a decision for the British people, not a handful of fascist monkeys like you.”

“You are quite simply mistaken on the facts: asylum seekers in the UK receive around £36 per WEEK, not per day, which is significantly less than income support or JSA.

I recommend doing some proper research before spreading vile lies that serve only to further demonize one of the most vulnerable groups in our society.”