Without showing any empirical evidence to show this is the dominant situation – all you’re saying is that because a small minority cheat the system, therefore all do.

Which is as stupid as saying that just because some people throw up and / or kill people under the influence of alcohol – all do. It’s idiotic thinking.

They were barred from working because it was claimed that being allowed to work once the reached here because allowing them to work allegedly acted as an incentive for other migrants to try to get here.

Obviously the idea that migrants fleeing oppression in Iran or just poverty (as opposed to poverty and oppression) in Moldova have in depth knowledge of the benefits system and labyrinthine asylum application procedure never crossed the mind of the proponents of this policy…

I guess those, like me, think that there’s no benefit to sending them home if they’ve made the investment (emotional or otherwise) to try and settle here anyway. As someone else said, the idea that they understand the intricacies of our benefit system is laughable. Let them work, let them stay, there’s no evidence whatsoever that letting them do so would harm our lives in the UK.

Because if you were giving people national insurance numbers and taking tax and NI from them, only to find out later that the person wasn’t even from the country they had claimed to be from, (or had made serious fabrications on their asylum claim), then it would make it all the more awkward to deport them.
Maybe people who had worked alongside them would also be upset by this person being deported, because they had believed this person’s story of persecution in their homeland and their flight to the safety of Britain for asylum.
A family member of mine works with unaccompanied minors from places like Afghanistan, and it is thought that some of them lie about their age so that the council has a duty of care for them.

http://www.croydon.gov.uk/healthsocial/falaservices/incare/unaccompminors

At #3 you asked about why Yasmin and her family came here. I pointed you to the only research – that i know of – on the issue, providing a link and pasting the relevant section.

Just exactly how is that cherrypicking??

Or do you think that looking at the evidence, however imperfect, is a sign of bias?

appreciated

22. For the record I’m not sure I agree with your stance, Sli, but it’s a perfectly respectable one to hold.

The problem is that “asylum seeker=victim=quasi messianic status” and thus anyone who asks any kind of challenging question about them is an evil Tory/Labour monster/Daily Mail Reader (pick insult of choice).

Look, you cherry pick from a HO report and you can’t be bothered to read what i have written; lack of empathy – I’ve written twice that these people should decently looked after, what’s your problem?

Btw – i think Yasmin was introduced to provide a perspective that is often ignored, rather than to provoke sympathy. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but so is Yasmin.

And rightly or wrongly, your comment about her and the general lack of empathy you seem to be showing for her position will be seen by some people as saying more about your views than anything else you say.

my only point is that the Tories are obsessed by immigration in a way that is rather scary. Every fault, every mistake, everything comes down to immigration.

For example I pointed out once that there was a problem of illegally trafficked women in this country… and that something needed to be done about it. The debate came up on News 24 and I was next to a Tory MP. HEr response? Curb immigration.

Curbing immigration is not going to stop women being trafficked, and once they’re here the Tories would rather pretend they didn’t exist despite all this rubbish about “compassionate conservatism”. But rather than spend any money helping women in this country who need help – they want to spend everything on curbing immigration.

Matt

Does someone want to translate this?

I’ve written twice that i don’t believe they should work but that they should indeed be properly supported. Just my opinion which i believe I’m entitled to hold.

As for your HO research:
65 interviews
“does not claim to be representative”
“Many of those in the sample were fleeing persecution… are more willing to engage in research of this kind”

interesting document but hardly conclusive and far too small a study to be of general use in asylum discussions

if you really want to miss the point of the article and just want to know why people seeking asylum come here, read this Home Office research – http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors243.pdf

“For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

“There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state.” (page viii)

http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/campaigns/livingghosts/exchangescheme.pdf/view