We will remove the rose tinted specs and think about whom we are allowing into our society.

In the early 1960s I was in Kingston Jamaica, It was two days after Jamaica got its independence. As an Englishman all made me very welcome.
I returned to Jamaica some 18 months later and it was a very dangerous place. The so-called democratic elections of a prime minister called if I remember correctly Mr Manley resulted in no less than 400 murders.

In Kenya (thought to be the most stable country in Africa) local elections resulted in gangs hacking each other to pieces with machetes and burning women and children alive as they took shelter in church halls very recently

Someone asked me on this forum if I still beat my wife well if I was an Afghan I would have a legal right not only to beat and starve her but also to rape her at will
And I could also have my daughters or sisters murdered if the were deemed to dishonour me.

Zimbabwe is beyond description and society there is non-existent

Even in South Africa people were having petrol soaked tyre’s put round their necks and set alight.

I first went to the beautiful island of Fiji in the 1960 and there were a few emigrants their from the Indian subcontinent. By the late 1990s they had taken over causing a civil uprising.

When did the last non-Muslim suicide bomber launch an attack in Britain?

I could go on and on but the stupid do-gooders have this fantasy that the people they let in here are all very nice and civilised. Has it ever occurred to them that some may be trying to escape retribution for their despicable deeds they committed in their own land and far from being innocent victims they just happened to be on the losing side.

Ethnic communities represent about 10% of the British population so I suggest that you watch crime-watch on TV where you will find that at least 60% of the wanted come from such communities.

All of the above is TRUE and these are the societies we are allowing into our mists.

I told you I only tell the truth as does Mr Griffin.

to suggest most asylum seekers are bogus is simply categorically erroneous, but to suggest bogus Iranian homophobic asylum seekers have any political weight on the ethics of British society is deluded.

It is ineresting that you mention the lesbian who would be hanged if sent back to Iran, this is the point I am trying to make .Whilst you are worried about the safety of this lesbian and condem Jamaicas imigration laws you are quite willing to allow members of a society who hang lesbians to come and live in our mists. i.e, Iranian so called asylum seekers.

We will remove the rose tinted specs and think about whom we are allowing into our society.

In the early 1960s I was in Kingston Jamaica, It was two days after Jamaica got its independence. As an Englishman all made me very welcome.
I returned to Jamaica some 18 months later and it was a very dangerous place. The so-called democratic elections of a prime minister called if I remember correctly Mr Manley resulted in no less than 400 murders.

In Kenya (thought to be the most stable country in Africa) recent local elections resulted in gangs hacking each other to pieces with machetes and burning women and children alive as they took shelter in church halls very recently

Someone asked me on this forum if I still beat my wife well if I was an Afghan I would have a legal right not only to beat and starve her but also to rape her at will
And I could also have my daughters or sisters murdered if they were deemed to dishonour me.

Zimbabwe is beyond description and society there is non-existent

Even in South Africa people were having petrol soaked tyre’s put round their necks and set alight.

I first went to the beautiful island of Fiji in the 1960 and there were a few emigrants their from the Indian subcontinent. By the late 1990s they had taken over causing a civil uprising.

When did the last non-Muslim suicide bomber launch an attack in Britain?

I could go on and on but the stupid do-gooders have this fantasy that the people they let in here are all very nice and civilised. Has it ever occurred to them that some may be trying to escape retribution for their despicable deeds they committed in their own land and far from being innocent victims they just happened to be on the losing side.

Ethnic communities represent about 10% of the British population so I suggest that you watch crime-watch on TV where you will find that at least 60% of the wanted come from such communities.

All of the above is TRUE and these are the societies we are allowing into our mists.

Matt Munro #143;

so we should entertain error, on a debating forum, to help people like roy sleep at night or what? I couldn’t sleep at night thinking about entertaining error!

Difficult, as in, ‘would be an absolute goldmine for the Daily Mail(/Telegraph/BNP/UKIP/some Tories/general anti-immigrant right) to scream about, and use to make the immigration system even worse.’

Fine, a good number of people here are in favour of open borders because it offers a “net” benefits and because immigrants enrich us culturally. Others are worried that migrants suppress wages, weaken organised labour, offer unfair competition, and can be more illiberal than people raised in Britain.

Moreover, illegal immigration is a problem because these people have no protection from exploitation. This again leads into those on the left who thing migrants cut wages.

Refugees deserve our help. I think most on the left are aware of the smear campaign which has been waged against them in the last few decades. But with round 15m people in immediate danger we need to help them.

Comrades, This is my 5 point plan!

1) Economic migration should be maintained at levels similar to now but labour laws tightened and a living wage introduced.

2) An Amnesty: We are all worried about illegal immigrants, some because they are exploited and others because they are exploited and pricing them out of the market. Similar to Strangers into Citizens; the left should support an amnesty for illegal immigrants. By legitimising these migrants positions we are giving them a better chance and removing the threat of illegal migration undermining wages.

3) Asylum Seekers should be eligible to work, those which cannot have their benefits brought up to a decent level.

4) A refugee resettlement plan is unilaterally implemented by the UK to help those who cannot reach the UK. Places would be offered to limited numbers of Sri Lankans, Darfuri etc. This would occur simultaneously with an international effort to get all developed countries to take more refugees.

5) We all sit back and pat each other on the back.

In all seriousness I think the above is a realistic project for the next 10 years. The amnesty is getting more and more support even on the right, asylum seekers working is such a no-brainer it’s hard to believe it was ever banned. We already have a very small refugees resettlement programme, this could be scaled up. And while pushing for more economic migration would be sacrificed by aiding refugees we are working for a greater good.

Once this programme is in place hopefully people will see that migrants aren’t so bad, and are in fact fucking brilliant, and we can all do 5)

“we don’t have one.”

Left Outside

I see that having lost the argument you have now resorted to the losers usual cant face the truth retaliation. Call you opponent a racist. how sad is that?

Roy, you’re a racist moron, good bye.

And is this funded by the taxpayer. the same tax payer who cannot get a free dentist or has been on the local housing list for years

I understand that recently in Birmingham residents were moved out of a large block of flats as they were considered unfit to reside in and too expensive to repair. However once they became empty they were all totaly renovated for ( youv’e guessed it) asylum seekers. No wonder the do-gooders want to silence Mr Griffin

What rubbish I never left this country and my father was actually fighting for its survival. The Dublin Convention is a red herring, before we joined the EU and signed up to these stupid conventions no one could emigrate to the UK even if you were in a country that was a commonwealth member. Have you never heard of the EMPIRE WINDRUSH? That tit head Blair has thrown our borders open to all and sundry he should be tried for treason. As for this human rights twaddle it is just a crooks charter and costing us millions

You may continue to look through your rose tinted specs but if you cannot foresee the approaching civil unrest you should go to specsavers. Having travelled to all five of the continents I realise that the vast majority of other nations hate us yet we allow these people to come here. Personally I couldn’t give a toss about sending asylum seekers back they have no respect for international law and therefore I have no respect for them and I do not care what happens to them. I have no doubt that you are very young and possibly a graduate for you clearly have no concept of the real world. Quoting home office dictum proves that you believe any do-gooder twaddle you read, they have no idea how many immigrants we have

Just think about this for a moment.

After WW2 colonial powers who had controlled many African nations and India for a century or two gave them independence. What was the result? Most of them immediately descended into civil wars and genocide it is people from these nations that we are importing. India gained independence via a peaceful protest but within months of independence it had descended into utter chaos and tens of thousands were slaughtered.

I haven’t read about all this in history books it all happened in my lifetime

No, you’d go to the country that was EASIEST to get to. If it’s a seven hour trek cross country bedecked with armed militia to get to your nearest neighbour or a 2 hour direct flight to a European hub, it’s a bit of a no brainer. And speaking of no-brainers, it’s Roy time!

You speak in sepia-tinged tones about Evacuees, Roy; people from a war torn area sending their kids into a place that owed them nothing. Can you really not see the difference?

‘Free accomodation’ Well, if you go to Lagos and try smuggle cocaine you’ll get ‘free food and accomodation’ there, too – bloody liberals.

Free medical attention – that’s just part of the NHS. Even Americans get free ‘medical attention.’ Dental and Optical care is to monitor pre-exisitng conditionsbefore they get worse.

So why is it that post corporal punishment – we now have 2 generations who have grown up without it – we have a more violent, and obviously therefore less respectfull society than we had then ?

We don’t: the significant rise in crime rates happened between 1965 and 1985, at which point all adolescent miscreants had indeed been thoroughly beaten.

if I was fleeing a country because I though their secret police might tie me to a chair and attach elctrodes to my genitals I would go to the nearest place that I thought was safe

I’d go to the first one I could get to where I could speak the language, knew some people, and generally thought I had a chance of building myself a new life. YMMV.

But as a general rule you’re right, and that’s why in world terms the countries who take most refugees are not countries like Britain and France but countries next to warzones and dictatorial regimes. It’s often forgotten that compared to many other countries we don’t accept many refugee at all.

Anyway, you’re still confused about the legal system. People are only entitled to any kind of support at all (and by support I mean housing that is of such a poor standard that it’s illegal to house British people there, and benefits amounting to only 2/3 of unemployment benefit); after that (unless their asylum claim is accepted, in which you by definition they can’t be an “illegal” immigrant) they have to live on the street or clandestinely with friends/family with no access to any support.

Do asylum seekers get free dentistry :- YES
Do they get free accommodation :- YES
Do they get free food :- YES
Do they get free medical attention :- Yes
Do they get some finacial benefits :- YES

Did they apply for asylum in any other country like France :- NO
Are their actions a breach of international asylum law :- YES

So then perhaps you liberal do gooders can explain why they shun seeking asylum in France and try instead to enter Britain illegally.

Thought not !!

The point is the law doesn’t refer to “nearest” country, it is the first one you arrive in, not including travel through.

However, as I’ve said, it’s a stupid law the only purpose of which is to make it easier for governments to deport asylum seekers. Like much of the asylum & immigration system, the laws are there specifically to criminalise migrants. (A good example is criminalising entry without accurate documents, when some asylum seekers have to destroy their documents/use false ones to get out of their country. That way you can stick someone in jail for six months and deport them for being a foreign criminal even if they’d otherwise have a right to stay here under asylum laws.)