Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News3 mins ago
More Asylum Seekers Housed In Hotels
54 Answers
http://
When is the government to tell these asylum seekers (economic refugees) that they are no longer welcome in this country.
If escaping from prosecution is their excuse then there are plenty of other countries on their way to the UK that they could find safety in, after all isn't finding refuge in the first safe country to theirs, the international rule?
In the meantime for all those that we have in this country already waiting for a decision, we could either use ex military camps or build some on remote Scottish Islands, perhaps then , when they find us no longer so accommodating they will choose another country to head for.
When is the government to tell these asylum seekers (economic refugees) that they are no longer welcome in this country.
If escaping from prosecution is their excuse then there are plenty of other countries on their way to the UK that they could find safety in, after all isn't finding refuge in the first safe country to theirs, the international rule?
In the meantime for all those that we have in this country already waiting for a decision, we could either use ex military camps or build some on remote Scottish Islands, perhaps then , when they find us no longer so accommodating they will choose another country to head for.
Answers
If their boat is serviceable it should be taken under tow and returned to the North African coast (too bad if it ends up a few miles from where it left). If it is not serviceable the people should be held securely until another vessel can return them to the same place. The Italians have stated that they are "proud" to be the chosen place for African immigrants to...
22:39 Thu 02nd Oct 2014
AOG raises an interesting question - why do asylum seekers come to the UK rather than the first 'safe' country they find?
Well, we are actually fourth in the list of European countries that asylum seekers come to. We are beaten by France, which gets *twice* the number of asylum seekers we do. Then comes Germany, then Belguim and then the UK.
Sweden and Switzerland get similar numbers to us.
And to answer the question posted...it's a scandal that tax payers money is spent on hotels for asylum seekers. We also stump up furiously large amounts of money to house benefit claimants in bed and breakfast accommodation thoughtout the country, which I too find ridiculous. The economics of this bear little scrutiny.
However, I suspect that even if asylum seekers knew that they were to be shipped out to the Outer Hebrides, or even an ex-army barracks, it would not deter them. For economic migrants feigning asylum status, it may simply been seen as a relatively painless part of the immigration process, and for genuine asylum seekers, army barracks or custom built facilities on a remote Scottish island would seem like heaven compared to what they're leaving.
Well, we are actually fourth in the list of European countries that asylum seekers come to. We are beaten by France, which gets *twice* the number of asylum seekers we do. Then comes Germany, then Belguim and then the UK.
Sweden and Switzerland get similar numbers to us.
And to answer the question posted...it's a scandal that tax payers money is spent on hotels for asylum seekers. We also stump up furiously large amounts of money to house benefit claimants in bed and breakfast accommodation thoughtout the country, which I too find ridiculous. The economics of this bear little scrutiny.
However, I suspect that even if asylum seekers knew that they were to be shipped out to the Outer Hebrides, or even an ex-army barracks, it would not deter them. For economic migrants feigning asylum status, it may simply been seen as a relatively painless part of the immigration process, and for genuine asylum seekers, army barracks or custom built facilities on a remote Scottish island would seem like heaven compared to what they're leaving.
Sorry - forgot to post a link to where I got my stats from:
http://
Furthermore, I apologise to ending that sentence with a preposition. Miss Drake, my old English teacher, would be furious with me.
As a side bar to AOG's initial question, perhaps if we want to dissuade asylum seekers from choosing the UK as a destination, we could send them a DVD of 'The Only Way Is Essex', letting them know that it's (and its 'stars') are hugely popular in the UK.
Personally, if I were a Sudanese refugee, fleeing persecution, it would give me pause for thought...
http://
Furthermore, I apologise to ending that sentence with a preposition. Miss Drake, my old English teacher, would be furious with me.
As a side bar to AOG's initial question, perhaps if we want to dissuade asylum seekers from choosing the UK as a destination, we could send them a DVD of 'The Only Way Is Essex', letting them know that it's (and its 'stars') are hugely popular in the UK.
Personally, if I were a Sudanese refugee, fleeing persecution, it would give me pause for thought...
Your figures are a little old, sp. In 2013 23,500 applications were received.
However, when comparing the numbers across Europe that is not the point. The vast majority of applicants arrive here having travelled overland across mainland Europe. None of these should be entertained as applicants are supposed to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. There should be no "destination of choice" in this matter - they have no such choice. If this one rule alone was properly enforced the number of applications in the UK was drop dramatically and our need to put large numbers up in hotels at the seaside would be similarly reduced.
However, when comparing the numbers across Europe that is not the point. The vast majority of applicants arrive here having travelled overland across mainland Europe. None of these should be entertained as applicants are supposed to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. There should be no "destination of choice" in this matter - they have no such choice. If this one rule alone was properly enforced the number of applications in the UK was drop dramatically and our need to put large numbers up in hotels at the seaside would be similarly reduced.
And the main reason they do not trouble to do that very seriously is that they (particularly Italy) are very fond of ushering illegal entrants to their country northwards. The ridiculous Schengen agreement has facilitated this by abolishing borders on mainland Europe and that is why Calais is suffering the problems it has.
If their boat is serviceable it should be taken under tow and returned to the North African coast (too bad if it ends up a few miles from where it left). If it is not serviceable the people should be held securely until another vessel can return them to the same place.
The Italians have stated that they are "proud" to be the chosen place for African immigrants to land in Europe. They have a regular operation to rescue these people and this year so far more than 115,000 people have landed on the small island of Lampedusa. In one weekend alone in early September almost 4,000 people were plucked from the drink. It is costing them £2m a week and they are urging other EU nations to contribute to the exercise. Almost all these people are quickly ushered across the border into France who in turn make no efforts to prevent them moving to Calais (for the many wanting to get to the UK) and to other places in northern Europe.
These numbers make this nothing short of an invasion. They are unsustainable and simply shunting these souls around the continent is not the answer. Unless something is done to repel these numbers make no mistake, there will be real trouble in Europe.
The Italians have stated that they are "proud" to be the chosen place for African immigrants to land in Europe. They have a regular operation to rescue these people and this year so far more than 115,000 people have landed on the small island of Lampedusa. In one weekend alone in early September almost 4,000 people were plucked from the drink. It is costing them £2m a week and they are urging other EU nations to contribute to the exercise. Almost all these people are quickly ushered across the border into France who in turn make no efforts to prevent them moving to Calais (for the many wanting to get to the UK) and to other places in northern Europe.
These numbers make this nothing short of an invasion. They are unsustainable and simply shunting these souls around the continent is not the answer. Unless something is done to repel these numbers make no mistake, there will be real trouble in Europe.
-- answer removed --
sp1814
/// We also stump up furiously large amounts of money to house benefit claimants in bed and breakfast accommodation thoughtout the country, which I too find ridiculous. The economics of this bear little scrutiny. ///
You talk as if benefit claimants are some form of low life, the majority of such claimants are people who have every right to benefits, they are own own people who have found the need to take advantage of our wonderful welfare state, to which they have most likely in the past paid into the scheme.
Why have they been housed in Bed & Breakfast accommodation, because there is not the housing stock in which to house them, and why is there not the housing stock in which to house them? (and don't use the usual excuse, "because Maggi Thatcher sold them off") no we do not have enough housing stock to house them because we are overcrowded with immigrants and these are a drain on our housing stock since they also need housing.
Just like our NHS, it is in trouble not because of the usual excuse (we are living longer) once again it is because it also has to take care of these additional claimants on it's resources, now we come to our schools, well I think by now you also know the answer to that problem?
/// We also stump up furiously large amounts of money to house benefit claimants in bed and breakfast accommodation thoughtout the country, which I too find ridiculous. The economics of this bear little scrutiny. ///
You talk as if benefit claimants are some form of low life, the majority of such claimants are people who have every right to benefits, they are own own people who have found the need to take advantage of our wonderful welfare state, to which they have most likely in the past paid into the scheme.
Why have they been housed in Bed & Breakfast accommodation, because there is not the housing stock in which to house them, and why is there not the housing stock in which to house them? (and don't use the usual excuse, "because Maggi Thatcher sold them off") no we do not have enough housing stock to house them because we are overcrowded with immigrants and these are a drain on our housing stock since they also need housing.
Just like our NHS, it is in trouble not because of the usual excuse (we are living longer) once again it is because it also has to take care of these additional claimants on it's resources, now we come to our schools, well I think by now you also know the answer to that problem?
"I am not alone in believing that the EU should levy a tax on ALL EU states to finance the defence of the EU Borders includiing Greece, Italy and Spain."
It should only be levied on the nations who foolishly signed the ridiculous Schengen Agreement. Foolish actually does not adequately describe this stupid scheme which effectively makes most of mainland Europe a single borderless nation. All nations have a duty to protect their individual borders and control who enters and to sign away that right is astonishingly irresponsible.
It was obvious to anybody with half a brain that abolishing borders in Europe would simply exacerbate the migration problem. If those entering the EU via Greece or Italy had effective border crossings to contend with it would make it very much more difficult for them to roam across the continent to their "destination of choice" and at each crossing they could be returned to the previous nation to have their asylum claims processed in accordance with the rules.
It should only be levied on the nations who foolishly signed the ridiculous Schengen Agreement. Foolish actually does not adequately describe this stupid scheme which effectively makes most of mainland Europe a single borderless nation. All nations have a duty to protect their individual borders and control who enters and to sign away that right is astonishingly irresponsible.
It was obvious to anybody with half a brain that abolishing borders in Europe would simply exacerbate the migration problem. If those entering the EU via Greece or Italy had effective border crossings to contend with it would make it very much more difficult for them to roam across the continent to their "destination of choice" and at each crossing they could be returned to the previous nation to have their asylum claims processed in accordance with the rules.
it ain't gonna happen. they are supposed to stop at first safe haven. they come half way across the globe risking life and limb, as they know that when they get here they will get all the benefits going, no other countries are stupid enough to do so but Britain is. successive governments encourage it as it keeps wages costs etc down. all political parties are the same. round where I stay there are several families who have nice houses and all the perks going, handed to them on a plate yet other locals have to wait years for a house, its disgusting to be honest, but it is the way of the world now, and if you say a word against it, you are deemed a racist, until we have a government with a bit of spine it will not change. we are an island which, in theory at least, should make it more difficult to reach. we have passed the point of no return I fear. we should have vast ships waiting off the coasts and house them there. very few add value to the economy. they play the escaping from a war torn country etc card, but why travel from Africa to UK ? Why not stop in spain , france etc ? we all know why but our so called leaders stand back and do nothing. it is a shame as some add value to the country, but it is now so diluted and unmonitored that the "good" ones are difficult to identify. I said back when it started do not allow them entry if they cannot speak English, nothing happened. and even now some of them cannot speak a word of English, sad but true, and on the back of it we have all the lunatics linked to the barbarians in middle east, again something else anyone in the street could have foreseen, but then again the man in the street has more sense than the mps. charity begins at home, unless you are british born and bred of course
There is a global crisis with refugees as a direct result of the ongoing issues in Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa.
The UK currently accepts between 20,000 and 30,000 Asylum Seekers per year with less than 1/3 being granted full refugee status. Pakistan currently houses 1.9 million refugees. 25% of Lebanon's population are refugees. That fact is that less that 2% of the worlds refugees are currently in the EU and the UK isn't even in the top 10 hosting countries in Europe. It is a burden that, in the main, is carried by countries less developed than our own with significantly less resources.
Whilst the UK is suffering tough times, we are still a country within the worlds top 10 for GDP and have significantly more resources than most. Yet we do significantly less than most. Yet all people do here is complain about 150 being housed in a hotel. Where is your humanity? To see people flee from a war zone, having lost everything, seen family members killed and tortured and arrive to this sort of welcome disgusts me being British.
You think it is a holiday these people are getting? Maybe you should read a different take on the story as opposed to headline grabbing Express sensationalism:
http://
The UK currently accepts between 20,000 and 30,000 Asylum Seekers per year with less than 1/3 being granted full refugee status. Pakistan currently houses 1.9 million refugees. 25% of Lebanon's population are refugees. That fact is that less that 2% of the worlds refugees are currently in the EU and the UK isn't even in the top 10 hosting countries in Europe. It is a burden that, in the main, is carried by countries less developed than our own with significantly less resources.
Whilst the UK is suffering tough times, we are still a country within the worlds top 10 for GDP and have significantly more resources than most. Yet we do significantly less than most. Yet all people do here is complain about 150 being housed in a hotel. Where is your humanity? To see people flee from a war zone, having lost everything, seen family members killed and tortured and arrive to this sort of welcome disgusts me being British.
You think it is a holiday these people are getting? Maybe you should read a different take on the story as opposed to headline grabbing Express sensationalism:
http://
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style9 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Should Children Under 16 Be Barred From...
News11 mins ago
Diffney 2024 (Not Holly Bough)
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.