IceDragon

The people who come from various countries to our shores come with tales of woe about how they have been treated. Stories of torture, intimidation etc.

Fact: These people are costing us money, we have an obligation to look after genuine asylum seekers.

Look at how we have to look after asylum cases from Saudi, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan. These are countries that we trade with.

It could therefore encourage slight modification of a countries behaviour if according to the amount of asylum seekers came from that country there were hikes in import duty to a complete ban on imports.

There have to be new and imaginative ways to pay for our obligations to international treaties which we are not allowed by law to ignore.

The fairest way is to make the country where the refugees come from pay for their upkeep and myriad other costs instead of the British taxpayer who is completely innocent.

Tom Commis

Just what import duties would you impose on Saudi imports?. Surely they only export oil (in any quantity). Most asylum seekers come from countries with little foreign trade, Afghanistan, Congo and the like.

This is a good idea (in theory) but the government is supposed to apply pressure to such countries anyway.

mkpdavies

I would perhaps ask the question; Why are we trasing with countries who we accept asylum seekers from?

If we deem asylum seekers to be genuine from a certain country, then what the hell are we doing propping up such a regime by trading with them?

Or are we so reliant on oil, that we have to do deals with the devil?

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Simon

The 1951 UN Geneva Convention requires asylum seekers to seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. This is not Britain – asylum seekers have to travel through many safe countries to get here. They are not our responsibility and have no right to be here.

Even the government admits that the majority of asylum seekers are not genuine. But it is difficult to tell whether somebody is genuine, and we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, making us a popular destination for even more asylum seekers. All ‘asylum seekers’ need to do is recite a made-up, but well rehearsed story about how they are being persecuted to a sympathetic immigration officer, and they’re free to enter Britain, with all the benefits that it brings for them. In Germany, only 9% are granted asylum. In other countries, it is even lower than that. In Britain, nearly 37% are given asylum of Exceptional Leave to Remain. The problem is that it is almost impossible to tell who is genuine from who is bogus, and therefore, no asylum system will ever work.

People seeking asylum will need the money to get to Britain, so most are either middle class, or violent young men who are able to steal the money they need to get here. 81% are male, with an average age of 27, which suggests that the latter makes up a significant proportion of the numbers.

Almost everyone who is being persecuted in their own countries for reasons that we would judge to be unfair, do not have the money to get here. Giving asylum to a few thousand people actually makes very little difference, when you consider than many tens of thousands die unnecessarily in the world every day. These problems are not our fault, nor can we solve them. The people of these countries must solve the problems by themselves through revolution.

Our asylum system costs around £1.8 billion per year. This works out at about £100,000 per successful asylum seeker. We have to provide housing for asylum seekers, while thousands of British people are without homes. We have to provide an education for their children, many of whom cannot speak English. Asylum seekers commit far more crime than the native population. While we get fined for not paying our TV licence, asylum seekers get a free TV licence and a free 20” television. We have to provide their health care. People who have lived here all their lives often have to wait longer for healthcare.

Remember, some of the asylum seekers might well have been experiencing troubles in their countries of origin for quite justified reasons. We would not want such people transferring their dubious activities to Britain.

Why should we want to ruin our country by importing people who are of a different race, religion and culture, and who are unable to integrate? The responsibility of the British government is to care for the British people. So why are one in five of the 11 million pensioners in Britain, who have contributed to this country their whole lives, living below the poverty line? Why are thousands of British people without homes? Why are thousands of children being bought up in poverty? We should use the money we save to help British people. It is time to put our own people first!

Matty84

Not sure about the rest, but agreed on this part. I also agree given our location, i dont see that asylum is an viable reason to enter this country, but thats a personal view. Despite the fact that many organisations claim immigrants contribute economically to this country, they simply do not. While they do indeed earn more than claim benefits, overall, like many british people, when public services are accounted for, they are in the lower earnings ranks, so are a burden to the state. I dare also say results are skewed somewhat more by the few rich russians and arabs entering the UK, yet probably having most assets abroad.
I dont believe in quotas or anything like that. If an expanding economy needs workers it should not be denied that. I personally think citizenship rights, such as healthcare, education, benefits, and legal protection should not kick in until that person has been here for at least 5 or 10 years, and invested a considerable amount of time and money in this country. This would take the right wingers ammunition that their a drain to society away from them, whilst also removing the carrot away from spongers, yet not closing the door to people who genuinely want to make a living.

I read in the times business section that some polish workers arent getting the same amount of money as Irish workers at tescos in Ireland. I also believe this is fair. In my gap year i worked for a very short time in a factory where many workers were portugese. They didnt have to pay British tax, and consequently earned more than myself for the same work. A small amount of their payment went towards an agency, but for that they were accomodated, got food, and transport (minibus), again lowering costs. Their money went straight home to their families where prices are considerably lower. Again, i think the minimum wage should be a citizenship right, when individuals have made a commitment to this country.

kernow

[quote="mkpdavies"]

If we deem asylum seekers to be genuine from a certain country, then what the hell are we doing propping up such a regime by trading with them?

Or are we so reliant on oil, that we have to do deals with the devil?[/quote]

I think you have 'hit the nail on the head'

John Carter

I thought we were self-sustaining in oil (at least when the EU isn't saying we've got to sell ours and import from elsewhere)?

__________________
There are three kinds of people in this world: Libertarians, fascists, and those who haven't been paying attention.

IceDragon

From the replies I am in agreement with the people who say that we should not trade in any way with countries who we accept asylum seekers from.

Tom Commis

IceDragon wrote[/quote]...we should not trade in any way who we accept asylum seekers from.

But we might reasonably accept asylum seekers from China with whom we do a lot of trade and on the other hand we have (wrongly) accepted asylum claims from people from fairly innocent countries such as the Czech Republic,
Bulgaria etc.
I might favour some form of tariff or other punitive action on these countries but a ban on trade would hurt us as much as them.

IceDragon

I am sure it would hurt us to some extent but how much money do asylum seekers cost us, especially failed asylum seekers. I am not just talking about board and lodgings but the crime, the damage to the community, the communicable diseases such as tuberculosis etc.