I find it amusing that those who oppose migration always show their true colours when comparing the UK to countries that have got it right. Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Cuba – what lovely company they would like us to keep!

Asylum Seekers are treated terribly to appease these authoritarians but it is never tough enough.

It’s funny how those calling for the greatest saction against asylum seekers are almost always those who live in areas of the country with…very very few or no asylum seekers.

It’s seems hard to expect more humane attitudes to asylum seekers when everyday of the week our “free” press cooks up dehumanising fiction-based scare stories about asylum seekers “stealing our jobs”, “stealing our women” etc.

And the whole time those very same people will plead that they are not allowed to talk about asylum for fear of being branded as “racist”.

Think is, they are fucking racist. The obsession and never-ending prattling on about foreigners is just too transparent.

No-one I know would send me anything like that. They know from experience that they would be challenged on their lazy, spiteful assumptions (on a reply-all, too).

LeftOutside: “Asylum Seekers are treated terribly to appease these authoritarians but it is never tough enough.”

Not only that, but they seem to actively refuse to believe that the terrible treatment even exists. We could have a policy of shoot-to-kill of men, women and children on the borders and still they would be complaining about them getting free cars and jobs.

I’m fairly convinced now that the reason for this apparent blindness to reality is that their actual grievance has little to do with border security or the actual treatment of illegal immigrants. Therefore no matter what level of barbarism the government employs, the moaning will continue. They will get no plaudits.

It’s simply that the attacking of illegal immigrants is a way of making by association a less socially acceptable argument – that ‘indigenous’ people should be given priority for jobs, housing, benefits (etc) over minorities, especially minorities they consider to have committed collective crimes (such as Terrorism, Telling Us How to Run Our Schools and Eating Swans).

Surely, the relevant comparison is what happens to migrants who illegally enter France, Italy and Spain, each of which has its own challenging problems of large scale illegal migration, often by landings on their respective Mediterranean sea coasts.

Try:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8170187.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/08/spain-sixfold-increase-immigrants
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1127823/Illegal-immigrants-DNA-tested-new-crackdown-France.html

@3

Rogue_Leader, that’s exactly what I did. I also sent some of the facts about what happens to asylum seekers in the UK. (www.refugeecouncil.org.uk is a useful reference).

Intriguingly, for writing this article I had to go looking for the circular email (I don’t have it any more). I quick search of the internet shows that it seems to have originated in the States and then been re-written for the UK and Australia. Some of the versions haven’t been properly translated and so still contain Americanisms like “Social Security Card” and “Food Stamps.”

If it weren’t for the fact that people believe this kind of thing is would be very very funny.

Sadly, it’s not remotely funny.

AFZ

It’s a bit weird isn’t it? I’m struggling to find what’s compelling about “These third-world dictatorships do all sorts of horrible things to their immigrants… so why don’t we?”

Actually these countries only do X to people who cross illegally, and get caught (and I doubt the writer of the email has actually checked the punishments given to illegal immigrants in those countries anyway). The whole premise fails completely at the first stage.

The more accurate comparrisson is what happens to those who migrate through legal channels, and I’d wager that any westerner who claimed asylum in North Korea would be given a lavish lifestyle provided they allowed themselves to be used by the regime for propaganda purposes.

For comparison with France:

“France pushes forward Roma deportations: ‘They are trying to get rid of us all’”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/19/france-begins-roma-deportations

England, (and this does tend to be a mostly English issue), has always had a weird and divided attitude to immigrants, whatever their reason for washing up on these shores. Its almost as if the English are quite happy to do good as long as they can go around with a good solid reputation for being total bastards.

This is an extreme example of a growing logical fallacy amongst policy makers and commentators. It is variant of association fallacy, and goes along the lines of “X is doing Y, so we should do Y too”, without any consideration of the evidence of what the effects of doing Y are. Usually X is a more celebrated entity, i.e. not a collection of communist and Islamist shitholes.

A commonly used country is Scandinavia (and particularly Sweden). Yes, they do come out on top of lots of league tables for quality of life, democracy and so on. That does not mean they get everything right.

I’m not certainly saying we should ignore others, indeed we should do quite the opposite. But it is the effects and outcomes that must be the primary consideration, rather than arguing simply ‘who’ and ‘what’.

I typed the above comment before reading the comments of others, and so hadn’t seen the argument Bob B was putting forward. But he makes my point rather nicely

Asylum Seekers are treated terribly to appease these authoritarians but it is never tough enough.

Exactly.

I seem to recall an independent commission described the UK asylum system as ‘shameful’ a few years back, but nothing can ever sate the loonies, everything will always be a ‘soft touch’.

LO @1

I know what you mean – I’ve heard it enough times for it to start being comical; things like “you wouldn’t be able to go to [insert crazy authoritarian to nines country here] and do that, why should you do it here” – to which the answer is “because we live in a country led by compassion and sometimes overliberal namby pamby which is far preferable to murder or imprisonment at the heart of the state” – to which the reply is “namby pamby?”

for more top tips on how to do with potentially racist or xenophobic comments go to http://www.wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww….

@ Carl,

Indeed, I want to shout at these people. In fact, I often do shout at these people.

@10: “England, (and this does tend to be a mostly English issue), has always had a weird and divided attitude to immigrants”

True – but there are quite straight forward explanations for that:

(1) According to the 2001 Census: “minority ethnic groups were more likely to live in England than in the other countries of the UK. In England, they made up 9 per cent of the total population compared with only 2 per cent in both Scotland and Wales and less than 1 per cent in Northern Ireland. The minority ethnic populations were concentrated in the large urban centres. Nearly half (45 per cent) of the total minority ethnic population lived in the London region, where they comprised 29 per cent of all residents.”
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=263

(2) According to this BBC2 Newsnight report, 40% of London residents were born abroad:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7368326.stm

(3) “[The UK's] overall population density is one of the highest in the world, due to the particularly high population density in England. Almost one-third of the population lives in England’s southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban, with about 8.2 million in the capital city of England, London.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

(4) “The UK will be the biggest country in Western Europe by 2050, overtaking both France and Germany, figures showed. The UK’s population will increase to 77 million in just 40 years’ time from 62.2 million today, a rise of almost 24%, the US-based Population Reference Bureau projected.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-population-largest-in-western-europe-by-2050-2039395.html

“only 2 per cent in both Scotland and Wales and less than 1 per cent in Northern Ireland.”

It depends if you count english born people living in Scotland or Wales as a minority really, which makes sense if you look at traditionally welsh speaking areas and examine attitudes towards english “settlers” in those areas.

“Other countries do terrible things to migrants so all the people who come here claiming to have had terrible things done to them must be lying to get free mobile phones”

@17: “It depends if you count english born people living in Scotland or Wales as a minority really”

Presumably, that must account for news reports like this:

“Police in Aberdeen are investigating a racially motivated assault on a man wearing an England shirt. Keith Brazier, 29, was attacked by a group of youths at 2030 BST on Saturday outside a supermarket on Union Street”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/5139054.stm

@17 Planeshift: It depends if you count english born people living in Scotland or Wales as a minority really

I think it makes sense for English people and Scottish people to count as a different ethnicities. Indeed, there is an organization in Scotland that regards that proposition as one of its core principles: this organisation’s leader is called Alex Salmond and he is currently First Minister of Scotland.

(Incidentally, as someone from England living in Scotland, I regard myself as both Scottish and English)

@19,

Yes there is prejudice against English people in Scotland. I’ve never encountered any, but I know people who have.

According to this news report, anti-English prejudice in Scotland is not unusual:

“ENGLISH people living in Scotland are the victims of persistent antagonism and prejudice and are regularly harassed and discriminated against by Scots, a survey has found.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1166767.ece

Nor are reports unusual of English people being attacked:

“Prime Minister Tony Blair has condemned attacks on a seven-year-old boy and 41-year-old man who were wearing England shirts in Scotland.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5101184.stm

On the evidence, claims about the Scots welcoming settlers who have migrated to Scotland are plainly wobbly but blatant racism was not the only regular motivation by several accounts:

“Sectarianism and religious bigotry have long been accepted as part of a way of life in Scotland. The divide between Protestant and Catholic, the Orange and the Green, is most visibly reflected in the support for Rangers and Celtic which begins early and spreads from parent to child, from one generation to the next.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4284023.stm

Of course, all this has to be considered against other endemic behavioural characteristics:

“A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html

But I have to admit that several decades have passed since I lived and worked in Scotland.

OP, AFZ: “Even Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons has concerns…”

Could we dispense of the initial word “even”, please? Most government inspection bodies do not operate according to the rules of the Hutton Inquiry and deserve a smidge more respect.

@22

My apologies Charlieman, I have a lot of respect for most government bodies. Ironically I don’t have any problem with the Hutton enquiry.

My use of the word ‘even’ was to contrast with organisations such as the Refugee Council or Medical Justice. I have no qualms about accepting their statements as facts, however, I appreciate that for doubters the potential agenda of such organisations might reduced their credibility. By contrast, HM Inspectorate of Prisons could never be accused of having a left wing agenda.

AFZ

Cheers, AFZ. Thanks also for the polite correction about my assumption of the Hutton Inquiry; you might accept it whereas I do not, but that does not make either of us fools.

Now, if Huntingdon Life Sciences set up a centre to welcome refugees and asylum seekers, these horrid stories would never get an airing.

Would they?

With respect but all this bullshit about asylum seekers being treated badly is hard to take. According to the site which gives them information, all they have to do is get here, say they are afraid to go home and take receipt of a HC2 form. This entitles them to free medical treatment, dental and glasses. They are also entitled to a translater to help them with registrations etc. If they need to travel for an outpatient appointment they can claim help with the travel expenses. If they need a support worker and translater and or social worker, this is also provided free of charge. Should they need out of hours medial assistance the out of hours doctor has access to a social worker and translater to accompanying him/her on the journey to the patient. They can then claim free full board accommodation while they are being processed. If they have belongings with them when they arrive the Council etc will store these items free of charge. They are then entiltled to free education for their children and an allowance from the social fund to buy food clothes, heat etc.
So please before you all start jumping up and down and screeching racist, check out what they are entitled to from authorised immigration advice centres. While Britain struggles on the brink of bankruptcy I personally believe charity should begin at home.
An asylum seeker should have fled a country for fear of persecution and he is advised to take refuge in the nearest safe country he/she arrives in. This is not what is happening in Britain. These people are making their way over numerous countries to enter Britian by sneaking in. The reason for this is simple. In the majority of cases they have received the word from relatives etc who have managed to get here, that once here, there are many things which are free. We the British tax payer are paying for this service, while many British peopl are losing their homes while others are dying because of lack of money for specialist medicines.
So being an asylum seeker in Britian is not the horrible life which many of you believe, but in fact a great life. I personally had one asylum seeker tell me that she loved his country so much, why? because its free. She then laughed.

They get food, clothes, heat AND their very own translator? They’re living the dream! Where do I sign up?

Dr.dre headphone can bring you to a lovely music world.