I guess you have to be quite data filled but it’d be really good is you tried to test the correlation between how these wars started-who they were aided by, like say the US or the UK selling arms-and the rise in asylum seekers from those places coming here.

To be pretended that the British government is just good old fashion fair is so not true.

The UK and the US (plus some France) have had an input in every major war/disturbance that has occured in the third world this past century.

If Sweden was taking in people, than, you can say that is a genuine kind act as the Swedes do not act empirially and go invade countries because they want to ‘teach them the right way to live’, esp when suprisingly the country happens to also have tonnes of oil, gold or something the UK/US want.

Furthermore, Jamaica as an old british colony. People are taught about British history at school AND they still have many British institutional rules etc. So again, it’d be very interesting to look at the replationship Britain has had with the countries that are seeking asylum-it’s not that black or white, pardon the pun.

This is something I find really fascinating being a bit of a history of politics buff and it seems the elephant in the room is still people refusing to admit that their maybe deals going around with why certain asylum seekers are let into this country and others are not-it’s more then just war.

A good example in correlation is with the Somalis, the Somali pirates and the fact that the US/UK have been dumping waste in their sea, of course, with permission from their own governments!

good work Unity – I look forward to part 2.

“That, in itself, creates a marked suspicion that some, if not a majority of applicants who seek asylum from within the UK may be doing so simply because they’re unwilling to return to their homeland for economic reasons once their visa/work permit expires.”

Sorry to be the thorn in the side for today but – just like with the student visa issue in the previous post in this series – you breezed rather alarmingly quickly past what is a fundamental concern of me and no doubt many other non-Daily Fail readers about the way that our immigration and asylum systems are being blatantly abused, even if their intentions are admirable and beneficial.

Like the last post, these issues deserve far more attention than you give them, although I appreciate that hard data may be in short supply.

I would be interested to know what motivates asylum seekers to come to the UK in particular. Is it the English language? Is it because they aren’t treated as well in other European countries?

“in that many Brits are no slouches when it comes to hating on the ‘gyppos’ and ‘pikeys’ either,”

In my experience the travellers in question who attract such hostility are not genuine Roma but those of “Anglo-Saxon” or “Celtic” ancestry. Having experienced such people setting up near me I can frankly understand why.

I would be interested to know what motivates asylum seekers to come to the UK in particular.

From Understanding the decision-making of asylum seekers [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.”

you breezed rather alarmingly quickly past what is a fundamental concern

Part 2 should address some of this issue.

After all the figures and reports this article cites, it fails to even touch upon the international conventions and laws on refugees. The most fundamental in the context of this article and for this debate being that refugees are required to seek asylum in the first safe country they encounter.

Legal advice issued by a specialist organisation in assisting asylum seekers in the UK confirms this:

“There are a number of ways that an applicant’s credibility may be damaged, for example.. if they did not claim asylum in the first safe country they reached after leaving their own country (known as a ‘safe third country’).”

http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/pages/the_asylum_process_made_simple.html

Quite clearly, with Britain being an island on the extreme North West fringes of Europe, the vast majority of the applicants in the chart you produce must have passed through safe countries to get here and have therefore breached the convention.

And aside from that fact, we have to ask why they would pass through not just one, but often multiple safe countries to claim asylum in the UK rather then obey the convention?

This will obviously get the already well worn knee-jerkers out with their screams of ‘racist’ but if you are going to have any meaningful debate on this issue it really needs addressing.

@Richard

“I would be interested to know what motivates asylum seekers to come to the UK in particular. Is it the English language? Is it because they aren’t treated as well in other European countries?”

I’m not sure the statistics bear your assertions that the UK receives significantly more than our “fair share” based on population and income (i.e. capacity to absorb asylum seekers).

In 2006, out of 192,300 EU asylum applications, the UK received 27,860, or 15% (compared to our population share which is 60 million out of 500 million, or 12% of EU population).

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-110/EN/KS-SF-07-110-EN.PDF

Especially when you consider that our imperial past gives us arguably a greater duty to clear up the mess that we left in many countries where asylum seekers come from. The fact we speak English (American!) of course plays a role in our attractiveness to migrants.

[On scrolling down that link, table 2 illustrates the “fair share” point clearly]

@Curious

“the vast majority of the applicants in the chart you produce must have passed through safe countries to get here and have therefore breached the convention.”

There’s this magical new invention (I understand why you may not have heard of it, it’s only been around for 80 years or so) called an aeroplane.

There’s also another magical invention (again, I understand that it’s only been around for a few thousand years, so fully appreciate why you may have neglected to think about it) called a boat.

These inventions enable people to travel between two different countries which do not share a border without travelling through other countries.

Modern technology eh?

CF: What does it matter if they claim in a different country or not? Those that come here chose ours and that should say something about their view of how we will treat them (comparatively better).

BTW, for your information, more asylum seekers are taken by Africa and Asia than Europe every year, a trend that is increasing as Europe has started accepting less asylum seekers as legitimate.

Meanwhile for all of the talk of them “Swamping” us, the UK doesn’t even feature in the top 10 countries ranked by number of asylum seekers versus inhabitants. Instead Malta, Sweden and Cyprus tend to have the biggest “influx” in relation to their population.

But you know what really gets me about people like you who troll out this “Why didn’t they stop in the first country” line? Even taking out the fact that most people seek refuge in Africa and Asia rather than Europe (the two being closer to most conflicts that cause displacement of populations), the UK has only, from 2004-2008, received (not even accepted) 12% of all European asylum seeker cases.

They generally DO go to other countries first, why you seem to think that these other countries that ARE taking asylum seekers before us, some as a much greater proportion of their population than we are, should take on even more of the burden and that we shouldn’t do our part in a global society is extremely arrogant.

I would like to pre-empt some discussion bound to arise around the point that “between 1989 and 2007, only 1 in 3 asylum applications were made at a port of entry.”

In the House of Lords in 2002 Lord Dholakia said:

Only a few days ago I put a question to the Minister [Lord Rooker, Minister of State, Home Office] asking whether there was a legal way in which an asylum seeker could enter this country. He gave me a very blunt answer – no.

Even at the height of the Cold War Britain grant asylum often. At some points in the 80s, The Daily Mail even defended asylum seekers. It called them “brave” at least when it was politically expedient to do so.

There is little to quibble about with Unity’s statistics in this case, except to note that they only include principal claimants, and not dependants.

Dwelling on the term ‘bogus’ is somewhat overwrought since technically there is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker, perhaps bogus refugee would be more to the point. It’s not really possible to have a meaningful discussion on that matter by simply considering the numbers of claims, outcomes have to figure in it as well. Suffice to say that over the years only around one in ten of all claimants are granted refugee status. The rest are, under the provisions of the Geneva Convention, bogus. I’m sure we’ll get to air that point more fully in Part II.

Unity’s detailed statistics do tend to obscure the bigger picture, which is that over the last twenty-five years around 1.05 million asylum claims have been received in Britain (including dependants). Of these, around 450,000 have been permitted to stay, on one pretext or another, 160,000 have departed voluntarily or involuntarily, 40,000 claims have been withdrawn, and 400,000 remain as failed asylum seekers.

When we come to discuss outcomes, I hope Unity will be acknowledging the crucial role that the Human Rights Act, enacted by the Labour Party in 1998, has played in deciding the outcome of many (if not most) successful aslyum claims, as well as in the inertia which has seemed to have gripped the government in dealing with the failed.

“Only a few days ago I put a question to the Minister [Lord Rooker, Minister of State, Home Office] asking whether there was a legal way in which an asylum seeker could enter this country. He gave me a very blunt answer – no.”

I wonder who then is responsible for putting up all the posters that are very visible at places like Heathrow airport advising asylum seekers to announce themselves to an immigration officer on arrival.

I don’t think anyone could possibly defend either Labour or Conservatives on their record of dealing with failed asylum seekers, or those waiting for a decision. Both have been woeful on this subject.

“I’m not sure the statistics bear your assertions that the UK receives significantly more than our “fair share” based on population and income (i.e. capacity to absorb asylum seekers).”

Where have I asserted this? I simply wanted to know what motivate those who choose the UK.

@Richard

“I would be interested to know what motivates asylum seekers to come to the UK in particular. Is it the English language? Is it because they aren’t treated as well in other European countries?”

Isn’t that asserting that asylum seekers do not go to other European countries, and that the UK takes significantly more than it’s fair share.

The question is certainly less relevant if you take into account the fact that 85% of EU asylum seekers choose to apply for asylum in countries other than the UK, broadly in line with the split in the population between the UK and the rest of the EU.

Isn’t the more pertinent question, “how come, if the UK is such a soft touch for asylum seekers as the BNP and our Curious friend assert, do we not take significantly more than our ‘fair share’ of asylum seekers based on population, especially given our Commonwealth links, moral duty to take in Iraqi, Zimbabwean and Afghan refugees and us speaking the world’s first language?”

Perhaps your next article will address this point, but surely the reasons behind the “bogus” tag is the fact that a majority of asylum applicatins are rejected, and an overwhelming majority of those whose aplications are rejected refuse to leave the country?

Tom Watson MP: ‘ surely the reasons behind the “bogus” tag’ (include the fact that) ‘an overwhelming majority of those whose aplications (sic) are rejected refuse to leave the country?’

Indeed, because someone who feared for their life in their country of origin would happily return there if their application for asylum in the UK had been rejected. Wait, maybe there’s a flaw somewhere.

…Come on, you could at least try to make intelligent arguments.

Oops, Tom Harris MP, not Tom Watson. Quite impressive to write such a ridiculously self-refuting argument, Tom.

@sevillista:

It ultimately doesn’t matter where an asylum claim is made within the EU because once the claim is accepted (or the claimant stays around long enough to take advantage of the next amnesty) and resident status is obtained, the individual can relcate to wherever he wishes within the EU.

In 2008, for example, more than three times as many Pakistanis claimed asylum in Greece than in the UK, but it is little doubt surely where the majority will eventually end up. So-called secondary migration within the EU is becoming a more prominent issue that will surely fire up the Euro-sceptics once the true scale becomes public.

The EU asylum stats make for fascinating reading and throws up some curious anomalies. Why, for example, do Serbs and Russians flock to France, while Afghans and Iranians prefer Britain?

@Dan

That’s interesting and suggests either a case for shutting down our borders with the EU and requiring visas for EU citizens to enter the UK (for sceptics who consider the cost to the economy of other EU countries reciprocating this as well worth while to protect the ethnic purity of our island or other reasons) or more coordination and consistency in EU asylum policy (for non-sceptics who consider enhanced EU mobility as having significant benefits).

Though won’t normal immigration rules apply (ie visa requirements for eg Pakistanis who wish to remain in the UK indefinitely) unless asylum seekers are granted citizenship of an EU country, which isn’t an automatic consequence of being granted asylum as far as I am aware (though I’m not sure, so happy to be corrected if I’m wrong)?

Tom Harris MP: Where do you get your stats on the “overwhelming majority of those whose aplications are rejected refuse to leave the country?”

I’m unable to find reasons for refusal of application, they don’t seem to be recorded, so we can’t sufficiently say the majority that are refused are refused because they don’t have legitimate concerns. One portion is most certainly because of the lack of support they receive in filling out Labour’s extensive forms (must be in English), but what of other reasons? Arbitrary decisions by someone here in the UK that their case isn’t that bad, and that they can avoid persecution by being discreet…like the homosexual sent back to Iran after his partner was executed by our lovely Jacqui Smith?

But aside from all of this the figures removed from this country after failure of asylum are pretty close to the figures that are refused asylum, so like I said I’d love to see the stats that show the overwhelming majority of those asylum seekers are actually still here.

Of course, the Iranian’s partner wasn’t executed by Jacqui Smith, a comma or two was needed somewhere.

Dan Dare: I may be wrong here, but the only individuals allowed freedom of movement within the EU are EU citizens…and unless I’m wrong an asylum seeker from outside the EU doesn’t become a citizen of the country they reside in without further measures….thus they can’t just hop on to the country of their choice.

On further review I have learned that the UK, along with Ireland and Denmark, opted out of the EC Directive which granted the right to freedom of movement within the EU applies to legally-resident ‘third country nationals’ who have five years continuous residence in another member state.

So false alarm, and yes Pakistani nationals resident in Greece would still be subject to immigration control on entry to the UK.

@Lee Griffin:

There was a proposal in 2008 to extend the 2003 Directive on ‘freedom of movement’ to refugees and others, but the UK opted out of that as well. The following gives the background detail.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmeuleg/16-xxiv/16xxiv19.htm

But certainly within the Schengen zone there now freedom of movement for resident non-citizens as well as EU citizens.

Yes Dan, though it is not that simple. You have to have been legally recognised as a resident of the country for 5 years before you’re able to utilise freedom of movement elsewhere than the UK, Ireland or Denmark.

As I said, it is not a case that people claim asylum at their first stop only to get further in to the EU, the idea that people coming from war torn countries, and countries of prejudice against their beliefs, with a 5+ year plan to make it to the UK is fantastical.

make it to the UK or anywhere else*

I’ll have to check what happened to the 2008 draft directive which would have allowed asylum seekers (in the Schengen zone) to execute just such a plan – it may still be somewhere in the system in Brussels, but I will check it out.

Wrt to your comments at #23:

“… But aside from all of this the figures removed from this country after failure of asylum are pretty close to the figures that are refused asylum, so like I said I’d love to see the stats that show the overwhelming majority of those asylum seekers are actually still here.”

I’m sure Unity will be getting into this in Part II, but your first statement is factually incorrect. From 1999 to 2007, 375,660 claims were refused of which 70,095 were overturned on appeal, giving a total of 305,565 failed claims. In comparison the total number of departures, voluntary and involuntary during the same period was 105,035, indicating a net increase in the ‘stock’ of failed asylum seekers of 200,530 over the period.

These stats are all taken from the annual “Control of Immigration: Statistics” report, available on the Home Office website. I’m quite certain that Unity is deriving many of his stats from that same source.

As far as the total number of failed asylum seekers, Prof. John Salt of the LSE estimates that to have been around 380,000 at the end of 2007. The figures are given in the report “Economic impact on the London and UK economy of an earned regularisation of irregular migrants to the UK” commissioned by Boris and the GLA in support of his calls for ‘regularisation’ (aka amnesty) of illegal aliens.

Dan Dare: My figures are based on the here and now, it would not be helpful to conflate figures of failed asylum seekers by using data from years where government has been less thorough on enforcing their removals. I’m open minded here on the stats and all, but this is a contentious subject who’s policy has altered drastically in a decade. It’d be irresponsible to use trends that don’t properly reflect the modern situation.

I also don’t care so much about the total rejection figures, but WHY those that were rejected had their appeals come to such a decision. Context matters.

Ah yes, the conflicts which drove so many across the world, past so many other safe countries, to the UK.

Just as happened with the Congolese, Sudanese, Angolan, Rhodesian/Zimbabwean, Eritrean/Ethiopian, Western Saharan and Mozambican conflicts between 1960 and 1980 ? And Algeria before that ?

Now I haven’t got the figures, but I guess it’s probable that

a) transport was relatively more expensive back in the day
b) the trafficking infrastructure wasn’t in place to any great extent

but growth of the trafficking infrastructure must surely have been harder because

c) there weren’t in those days so many Unitys saying how awful we are if we don’t let them in

Laban is right – we must send the Unitys to the salt mines.

@Laban

So what’s your answer – close British airports?

32. Read the other comments, most asylum seekers don’t come to the UK

@LG

The truth of the matter is that the asylum statistics appear to be inelastic as far as the ‘toughness’ of the regime. In the last full year (2008) claims were up and removals down from the prior year.

As to the stock of failed asylum seekers, according to Prof Salt that amounted to a grand total of 286,000 at the end of 2001, after 13 years of Thatcheresque wimpishness and just a few years of NuLabor grit.

But look what’s happened since. Has 6 more years of a no-nonsense ‘firm but fair’ Labour policy made a dent in that number? Actually not, over the period from 2001 to 2007 the stock increased by another 215,000, accrding the Prof. Salt.

The final total has been trimmed somewhat though since then by a little judicious ‘regularisation (whatever you do, don’t mention the A-word!) to the tune of knocking 126,000 off the failed count but moving them into the ‘approved’ column. Ain’t spreadsheets wonderful?

Dan Dare: The truth of the matter is last year some 13k people failed their applications, while over 12k were removed from the country. The figures were 16k and 13k in 2007, 21k and 18k in 2006. The modern trend is for the total number of failed asylum seekers to be marginally higher than those removed from the country. 2005 and before it was different, the question is why, and whether the reasons are relevant to the modern picture.

The reason I brought this up wasn’t to really argue about effectiveness of controls or such, merely to question Tom’s assertion that the majority of failed asylum seekers stay in this country. In the last 3 years that is quite simply not the case.

Of course I will ask the same as I did in the last thread…ultimately when these small amounts of people get in to the UK after failing their asylum application…why is it wrong? I mean…aside from the government denying them the opportunity to properly contribute to taxes and the opportunity to use our taxes in free healthcare…what exactly is so bad about these people. Are they all theives and murderers in your eyes? Or is it just the principle?

@ sevillista

**“There’s this magical new invention (I understand why you may not have heard of it, it’s only been around for 80 years or so) called an aeroplane.”**

All very clever I am sure; I know you are unable to hold a debate without angry insults and stupid little jibes but the author of the post gives you a clue of the reality in this part:

“Between 1989 and 2007, only 1 in 3 asylum applications were made at a port of entry. The rest were made from within the UK, in some cases by people who had entered the country illegally and successfully evaded border controls, in others by people who were already in the county legally at the point at which the application was made.”

Do you understand why this information might just be significant in regards to genuine asylum seekers and the mode of transport you describe?

And have you by chance heard of people smuggling, ad hoc refugee camps in Europe, boat routes from Libya…

**“There’s also another magical invention (again, I understand that it’s only been around for a few thousand years, so fully appreciate why you may have neglected to think about it) called a boat.”**

Dear oh dear.

Are you now going to claim in all seriousness that people from Somalia and Iraq have sailed either through the Suez Canal and down the med and up the Atlantic, or down and around past the Cape of Good Hope, all the way up the Atlantic!

And tell me how the 5th biggest group, the Afghans managed to come by boat?!

Are you for real?!

But Lee, you’re commiting the very same fallacy that Unity warned against right at the beginning. It can be misleading to focus on the stats for a single year, or even two or three, which is why he is correct in insisting that the questions can only be considered in the context of an extended time series.

The 26,000 initial claims, the 13,000 refusals and the 12,000 removals in the calendar year 2008 do *not* necessarily all apply to the same set of people. The totals for refusals (and appeals) and removals may apply in large part to claimants from prior years, in fact they almost certainly do.

No, I don’t believe they are all thieves and murderers, and it is the principle of the matter. The plain truth is that over a million have claimed asylum in the the UK since 1984 and only a very small minority have had their claims upheld. The rest – probably around 850,000 – are hanging on illegally or under some form form of ‘temporary’ protection which will be rendered permanent in due course, as we have already seen in the form of the so-called ‘legacy cases’ exercises which is nothing other than an amnesty by stealth.

As long as we have a ‘system’ in place that facilitates such abuse we will remain vulnerable to the backwash from events in other parts of the world which are fundamentally no concern of ours.

@ Lee Griffin

**“What does it matter if they claim in a different country or not?”**

Well it matters Lee, because they very law and convention they use to claim asylum also tells them to claim it in the first safe country.

It matters Lee, because when people use one part of a law and convention to claim asylum but break another part of the law and convention by not claiming it in the first safe country these people are not genuine asylum seekers.

It matters Lee, because people that do not claim asylum in the first safe country are not our legal responsibility.

**“BTW, for your information, more asylum seekers are taken by Africa and Asia than Europe every year, a trend that is increasing as Europe has started accepting less asylum seekers as legitimate.”**

You are not actually informing me anything Lee; it is well known, obvious and the way it should be.

If Western Europe, lets say for example Holland or Belgium, suddenly experienced civil war or become totalitarian oppressive regimes we would expect to see all asylum seekers in the UK, Germany or Scandinavia and not in Pakistan, India or Australia; indeed that would be the asylum seekers obligation and it would also be our legal responsibility.

You understand now, Lee?

**“But you know what really gets me about people like you who troll out this “Why didn’t they stop in the first country” line?”**

And you know what really gets me with trolls like you Lee? It’s the lies you make up and then attribute to dissenters as if they had said it themselves and then attack your own lie with indignant moral outrage. You used the same tactic over and over again in that last thread.

You see Lee, what I actually said was “first safe country” and you do you know the reason why I said that? Because that is what the very law and convention that asylum seekers use to claim asylum tells them where to claim it.

Are all facts you don’t like “trolling” and the people that post them “trolls”? Is that the world you live in Lee.

**“They generally DO go to other countries first, why you seem to think that these other countries that ARE taking asylum seekers before us, some as a much greater proportion of their population than we are, should take on even more of the burden and that we shouldn’t do our part in a global society is extremely arrogant.”**

And they should be going to other countries first. Safe countries that border them.

If and when Western Europe erupts in civil war and oppressive regimes, then the UK will have to honour its international obligations and take in genuine asylum seekers just in the same way as these other countries else where are now honouring their international obligations.

is that the best you’ve got curious racist? Ha ha ha

@ Dan Dare

**“there is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker”**

Really?

Not even the ones that burn their documents and lie about the country they come from and pretty much everything else?

curious racist is twisted up with hatred and fear, a bigot through and through!

“Really?”

Yes, every state that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention on Refugees has an obligation to consider each and every claim for asylum that it receives (subject in the EU to the Dublin Convention).

Until that claim has been refused, the individual is not bogus-anything; once it is, they become an illegal alien and should be deported.

If you don’t care for the system the thing to do is to lobby for the UK to derogate from the Geneva Convention, which it is perfectly entitled to do and something which even T. Blair publically mooted at one point.

@ “Lemmy” / DHG

It really is quite freaky that you managed to respond to my comment a minute later; seek help matey.

When you are not spoofing yourself, Chairman moo and me and trying to plug your shitty little show, you like using multiple identities to attack me and most likely others here too.

Besides the prose, semantic style and choice of words giving you away, a quick Google search and a few links later I have found that many people have flagged you as a proper nutcase and this as one of your favourite devices; expect non-stop one line troll abuse and last word’ism apparently.

How bizarre. What a nut.

But anyway as I said before:

Once again, you throw around words you cannot define and for reasons you cannot explain.

@ Dan Dare

**“Until that claim has been refused, the individual is not bogus-anything; once it is, they become an illegal alien and should be deported.”**

They also become a bogus asylum seeker at that point too!

“Isn’t that asserting that asylum seekers do not go to other European countries, and that the UK takes significantly more than it’s fair share.”

Looking again at what I said I accept that my question was badly worded, should probably have left out the “in particular”.

@curious

“; I know you are unable to hold a debate without angry insults and stupid little jibes”

You were suggesting that most asylum seekers crossed several borders to reach
“soft touch” UK. I was pointing out a major flaw in your argument – I am sure most asylum seekers arrive by air. Not really
insulting is it? I could be insulting if you like, you big twat.

You just hate it when people point out the flaws in your logic and your (deliberate) misinterpretation of facts to suit your prejudices.

Obviously there are other major flaws in your argument,
such as we receive our “fair share” of applicants relative to the rest of the EU and 85% of EU asylum seekers apply in other EU countries.

“Are you now going to claim in all seriousness that people from Somalia and Iraq have sailed either through the Suez Canal and down the med and up the Atlantic, or down and around past the Cape of Good Hope, all the way up the Atlantic!”

It’s possible. Our globalised world requires lots of commercial ships to take goods from one part of the world to another. These ships provide stowaways possibilities to travel to other countries. Suez, for example, is an important trade route for these ships travelling from Asia to Europe and the US.

Though maybe I’m being silly as you say and asylum seekers arriving in this way is a logical impossibility?

@Richard

No worries – sorry if I misunderstood.

Curious Freedom,

It is an interesting point, is it not, that if we are to be the first port of call for asylum seekers then that limits the numbers that are legitimately allowed to come here. Obviously, any land-locked country, Afghanistan for instance, would immediately fail your criteria.

Two points.

Should she be entitled to continue in a search for security, or should a failure at first instance mean that she should be immediately returned to Afghanistan

Lets assume that the putative Afghani was actually allowed to wander the world, and been rejected at every step, by every country between there and here.

Should we not make our own judgement about her?

___________________________________________

Anyway, you are a littorial sort of person that thinks the sea connects us all. As one can travel from Tonga to England directly, are Tongan asylum seekers naturally better than say, Tibetan asylum seekers?

It is not events, dear boy events, that you wish to see rule the world. It is accidents of geography. I doubt the Swiss or the Austrians…

You see the point, or you are a fool.

Since 70% of asylum seekers make their claim when already in the country rather than at the port of entry, it seems likely that they have will entered under some other pretext, most likely perhaps on a visitor’s visa. It would be interesting to learn the immigration status of in-country applicants, whether visitor, student, temporary worker or whatever.

It’s noticeable that whenever gangs of illegal foreign workers are apprehended the first step is often to claim asylum.

There does seem to be an air of opportunism about in-country claims; perhaps banning those might be the solution for much of the problem. You would have thought that anyone in actual fear of persecution would make their their claim at the earliest possible opportunity, that is, on entry to the country.

Sevillista

I think you may wish to withdraw you completely offensive remark:

You just hate it when people point out the flaws in your logic and your (deliberate) misinterpretation of facts to suit your prejudices.

There is no logic in it. Our good friend Curious Freedom is quite likely unable to reveal her political identity because she subscribes to a very right wing party. And it would be anathema for a right wing troll posting on a left wing web site to break that secret.

Least, this is the sorry pass I think we have reached.

“Until that claim has been refused, the individual is not bogus-anything; once it is, they become an illegal alien and should be deported.”

Quite, there is nothing but assumption that those failing to gain asylum have failed because they just can’t be arsed to go through the immigration process.

CF: “You understand now, Lee?”

Of course I understand 🙂 I think it’s amazing you have such a simple view of the way the world works, that straight line geography trumps all, and that indeed all asylum seekers are physically in the country that they are nationals of when they decide they need asylum.

“And they should be going to other countries first. Safe countries that border them.”

And they significantly more often than not do. What next, are you going to come on here and tell us that the sky is blue and that most birds fly? You are extremely informative, a resource to behold!

Personal anecdote doesn’t make a statistically meaningful case, I know…but..

The Afghani refugees I know in my town, did apply for asylum at the point of entry to the UK. ie the proper way.

Having been beaten up twice in 10 months: GBH on each occasion: I guess they may be wondering whether they should go back to Afghanistan… the UK has not been the safe haven they may have imagined.

But if nothing else, I think they realise that the free studies they get here, are way superior to anything over there: and they are keen to learn and have ambitious career plans.

Amazing. It’s more like a scene from ‘one flew over the cuckoos nest’ then a debate in reality.

There is no free exchange of ideas and thoughts, just endless insults, strawmen and weasel words.

I put up valid points based upon reality, where the real people live, and you guys just come up with surreal inventions, outright lies and convoluted nonsense.

**“You were suggesting that most asylum seekers crossed several borders to reach “soft touch” UK.”**

Again you put “speech marks” on something I didn’t say; you did.

**“I was pointing out a major flaw in your argument – I am sure most asylum seekers arrive by air.”**

Based upon what exactly?

And genuine asylum seekers are required to claim asylum at the point of entry. Not use visas to enter and then claim, or overstay and then claim, or enter illegally and then claim.

And the figures the author of this post clearly states only 1 in 3 claims at point of entry.

**“Not really insulting is it?”**

Again with the lies.

What you actually said was:

“There’s this magical new invention (I understand why you may not have heard of it, it’s only been around for 80 years or so) called an aeroplane.”

“There’s also another magical invention (again, I understand that it’s only been around for a few thousand years, so fully appreciate why you may have neglected to think about it) called a boat.”

And you now claim that these childish attempts at scorn were not meant to be insulting?

**“I could be insulting if you like, you big twat.”**

Yeah and I could call you a stupid cunt, but that’s not really a debate is it? That’s not what we are here for, is it? Or is it?

**“You just hate it when people point out the flaws in your logic and your (deliberate) misinterpretation of facts to suit your prejudices.”

You haven’t done any such thing! And you now talk as if you know me.

All you have done is totally ignore what I have actually said, invent your own version and attack that. Weird.

**“Obviously there are other major flaws in your argument,
such as we receive our “fair share” of applicants relative to the rest of the EU and 85% of EU asylum seekers apply in other EU countries.”**

Again with the “speech marks” attributing quotes to me that I haven’t made and arguing against your own lies.

I haven’t claimed any such thing. I have clearly stated:

“[the] convention they use to claim asylum also tells them to claim it in the first safe country… when people use one part of a law and convention to claim asylum but break another part of the law and convention by not claiming it in the first safe country these people are not genuine asylum seekers…people that do not claim asylum in the first safe country are not our legal responsibility…If and when Western Europe erupts in civil war and oppressive regimes, then the UK will have to honour its international obligations and take in genuine asylum seekers just in the same way as these other countries else where are now honouring their international obligations.”

**“It’s possible. Our globalised world requires lots of commercial ships to take goods from one part of the world to another.”**

Even if it were even remotely true, and you now move away from everyone arriving via an airplane; but commercial ships dock multiple times around the world on a long haul voyage and at least one on those routes cited would be a safe country; also at the very least, one person in the crew would have to be involved making it the very people smuggling operation I referred to.

**“Though maybe I’m being silly as you say and asylum seekers arriving in this way is a logical impossibility?”**

It’s also a logical possibility that they have used air balloons to arrive, parachuted in and maybe even rode the backs of dolphins; but its not reality is it?

Or do you have evidence that that it is a major route in?

@ Lee Griffin

**“Quite, there is nothing but assumption that those failing to gain asylum have failed because they just can’t be arsed to go through the immigration process.”**

Again, what an odd construction.

An asylum seeker who goes through the system and after due process it is found that their application is bogus, becomes a bogus asylum seeker.

You see now, Lee?

**“Of course I understand I think it’s amazing you have such a simple view of the way the world works, that straight line geography trumps all, and that indeed all asylum seekers are physically in the country that they are nationals of when they decide they need asylum.”**

Well, once again, just plain weird and not even remotely a rational response to what has actually been explained to you about the law and the convention when all you could come up with was “What does it matter if they claim in a different country or not?”

And the reality based answer, the answer based in law is:

“Well it matters Lee, because they very law and convention they use to claim asylum also tells them to claim it in the first safe country.

It matters Lee, because when people use one part of a law and convention to claim asylum but break another part of the law and convention by not claiming it in the first safe country these people are not genuine asylum seekers.

It matters Lee, because people that do not claim asylum in the first safe country are not our legal responsibility. “

You now really expect normal people, I mean people who are not ideologically indoctrinated into the bizarre and insane, to believe against everything we know about people smuggling and the routes into this country, that over the years somewhat miraculously hundreds of thousands of future asylum seekers were here perfectly legally, when all of a sudden, their countries erupted into civil war and political oppression and then they claimed political asylum!?!

If this was really true, surely we would have had massive numbers of each group claiming at the exactly the same time at each calamitous event in their own countries?

FFS!

@ douglas clark

**“It is an interesting point, is it not, that if we are to be the first port of call for asylum seekers then that limits the numbers that are legitimately allowed to come here. Obviously, any land-locked country, Afghanistan for instance, would immediately fail your criteria.”**

Say again in English.

And exactly what criteria have you assigned to me now?

**“Should she be entitled to continue in a search for security, or should a failure at first instance mean that she should be immediately returned to Afghanistan”**

Again, I need it in English.

And who is “she” now?

**“Lets assume that the putative Afghani was actually allowed to wander the world, and been rejected at every step, by every country between there and here.
Should we not make our own judgement about her?”**

English please?! What?! Who is “she” again as well?!

**“Anyway, you are a littorial sort of person that thinks the sea connects us all. As one can travel from Tonga to England directly, are Tongan asylum seekers naturally better than say, Tibetan asylum seekers?

It is not events, dear boy events, that you wish to see rule the world. It is accidents of geography. I doubt the Swiss or the Austrians…

You see the point, or you are a fool.”**

What?! Really, what on earth are you saying? Or trying to achieve with this lunacy?

As for accidents of geography, we go straight to my sane point based upon the relevant law and convention:

“If and when Western Europe erupts in civil war and oppressive regimes, then the UK will have to honour its international obligations and take in genuine asylum seekers just in the same way as these other countries else where are now honouring their international obligations.”

**“I think you may wish to withdraw you completely offensive remark:”**

Personally I didn’t find that offensive. Just completely bizarre. Disjointed. Removed from reality. Baseless.

**“There is no logic in it. Our good friend Curious Freedom is quite likely unable to reveal her political identity because she subscribes to a very right wing party.”**

Yet another bold statement, of which I am sure you will have no trouble backing up…

**“And it would be anathema for a right wing troll posting on a left wing web site to break that secret.”**

Coming from a racist Scottish nationalist who has been answered in full, yet refused to show any reciprocity in answer in the relevant thread, I am left with no choice but to repeat my previous response to you in lieu of this claim and your claim that you are not racist / don’t hate the English:

“Oh what an absurd lie! You can’t wait to break away from the English. Why is that again?! As an Englishman, am I welcome in your party? Would I be welcome to stand for the SNP?

Face facts. For once, embrace reality. You are a nationalist, which Wikipedia define as thus:

“Nationalism is an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the primary importance of the nation. It may be a form of patriotism, stressing the good things about ones own nation, or a form of chauvinism, stressing the bad things about all other nations. According to Blank and Schmidt it is an idealisation of a nation, and often tends to identify a homogeneous national culture, sometimes combined with a negative view of other races or cultures.”

To sum up: As a nationalist you feel that your nation, that is the people that make up your nation, have an innate uniqueness that makes them worthy of protecting as an entity and that it has a specific and unique cultural identity that is worth preserving and that you are proud of your nations history.

You are even more of specialised nationalist too: A Scottish nationalist. Considering we share the same citizenship, with there being no Scottish citizenship, you obviously consider the rest of the UK and its people as outsiders to your nation irregardless of the fact that we are fellow countrymen and welcome a border to divide us, as well as legal and administrative divisions too.”

**“Just out of curiosity, and seeing as how I have revealed my membership of the SNP, would you care to tell everyone here what political party you favour?”**
You insult me without being able to give any reason why. You think you can decide which opinions are worthy of a public forum. You are not genuine. You are dishonest.

Consequently I don’t much like you and I certainly don’t answer to you.

So quite frankly it’s none of your business to be curious about anything relating to me or to ask me anything at all.

Least, that’s what it looks like to me…

Curious Freedom,

I don’t much care for your Wikipedia definition of nationalism. It is certainly not what the SNP are about, nor what I am about. Just to be very boring on the subject, as far as I am concerned, as far as my party is concerned, if you live here, and say you are a Scot, then you are a Scot.

No, ifs, no buts. Doesn’t matter a stuff what your heritage was.

It is perhaps why I have absolutely no difficulty in supporting an SNP candidate, such as Osama Saeed. I suspect you see things a bit differently.

Consequently I don’t much like you and I certainly don’t answer to you.

What a shame. Boo-hoo or the like. If you completely fail to argue your case, if you just revert to assertion, or insult, then frankly, you are a waste of space.

Why the silence on your political affiliation?

Could it be, shock horror, that you subscribe to some sort of racist party?

Curious Freedom,

Just so you know.

I am not really very interested in debating a racist. What I am interested in is the views of the hundreds and hundreds of folk that might read this. You have made the cardinal error of assuming that it’s just me and thee that are having this discussion.

It is not.

There are folk out there that read what is said and very rarely comment.

That is your audience.

Not just me.

So, so far, how do you see the score?

Curious Freedom,

If you don’t know what words mean, then that is your problem.

Your entire debate on asylum seekers seems to boil down to whether or not someone has to pass through another country to get to our borders, or not. Therefore, any country that has access to the sea, say Tonga, has a direct oceanic route to the UK, without passing through another country

Thus, anyone with either a direct sea route, or come to that air route, to the UK is advantaged in seeking asylum here. For they have not passed through another nation.

I’d have thought that was bleeding obvious.

It is also fairly obvious that land-locked nations are disadvantaged by that.

It is therefore a reasonable question for you as to whether or not an asylum seeker should be returned to the nation that they are seeking asylum from, if at first instance, their appeal for asylum is rejected by their immediate neighbour. It rather destroys the idea of appealing for asylum, does it not?

I really don’t think you have thought this through. Your initial position would appear to mean that the UK was uniquely only responsible for asylum seekers from Eire, as that is the only country that we share a common border with. And, obviously vice versa.

Would you extend it to Faroe Islanders, should they take exception to their dictatorial government?

Unity,

Excellent post.

Can I just ask you this though?

From hanging around, quite a lot, on the internet, it seems to me that the most disliked group of asylum seekers are Somalis.

To be honest, I’ve never met one. But I understand that in Somalia there is a rife gun culture,and that they are now over represented in our criminal classes. Whilst we should obviously do what we can for these folk, perhaps we should also be dealing with their perceptions too? It seems ridiculous to me that they do not seem to be offered any sort of counselling, pre-entry.

That was very interesting, again. Thanks; I sometimes wish I had your patience.

@curious

“I put up valid points based upon reality, where the real people live, and you guys just come up with surreal inventions, outright lies and convoluted nonsense.”

So:

“valid point based upon reality” = “Quite clearly, with Britain being an island on the extreme North West fringes of Europe, the vast majority of the applicants in the chart you produce must have passed through safe countries to get here and have therefore breached the convention”

surreal invention = the aeroplane, which enables people to travel between two different countries without passing through others on the way

It’s just too surreal and clearly nonsense.

“All you have done is totally ignore what I have actually said,”

You claimed that, as the UK is an island, most people must travel through other countries to get here.

I responded to that point, by drawing your attention to the ability of people to travel by air or sea, showing that your point is demonstrably false.

How is that ignoring what you said?

“Again with the “speech marks” attributing quotes to me that I haven’t made and arguing against your own lies.”

You come up with lengthy essays every post that don’t easily allow quotes.

Do you, or do you not, believe that the UK is a soft-touch on immigration? You might choose to say it in 20 times as many words, but that is what you are saying.

“It’s also a logical possibility that they have used air balloons to arrive, parachuted in and maybe even rode the backs of dolphins; but its not reality is it?”

And your evidence that people don’t stow away on boats is what exactly?

You were claiming that people must have crossed through other countries.

But you are assuming that they do not come by air, nor do they come by sea.

What evidence is this based on?

But even if the asylum seekers travel by air, they still have to cross other countries to get here.

Has the possibility of parachutes been considered? 🙂

I understand that in Somalia there is a rife gun culture,and that they are now over represented in our criminal classes. Whilst we should obviously do what we can for these folk, perhaps we should also be dealing with their perceptions too? It seems ridiculous to me that they do not seem to be offered any sort of counselling, pre-entry.

I take it, Douglas, that you have been spoofed?

Before I retired I worked in a psychiatric out-of-hours team which was headed by a Dutch woman. This was 2004. One day she was absent for a couple of days, and no-one knew why.
When she came back I asked her. She said she had had to do some interpeting work. As practically all Dutch people who come to the UK speak English, I expressed surprise that it was necessary. She said she had been interpreting for an influx of Somalians who had arrived here. They had been living in Holland, but because there had recently been
some new Dutch legislation relating to benefits which was disadvantageous to them, they had decided to up sticks and come to the UK which was now more generous in its provisions. They were staying in a local hostel. Some weeks later I had to visit the hostel. The manager had gone off Somalis since they were always dissatisfied with something, starting, when they got here, with the size of the TV, which was smaller they were used to in Holland. People in social services of my acquaintance also seem to like Somalis least, for similar reasons.
All my informants in my experience were card-carrying multiculturalists originally.
“Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a lot to say about her fellow Somalis in Holland.

You say you wouldn’t debate with a racist, Douglas. So would you refuse to debate with a sexist, ageist, classist, appearancist, heightist,or any other representative of the open-ended list of people who evaluate people unjustly by virtue of a particular parameter?

Let’s say (thinking of J Stuart Mill here) that if a “racist” has 99 very inaccurate opinions, but one very accurate and very important opinion which is voiced by no-one else, would it not be fair that that opinion should be expressed even if entails hearing some of the inaccurate ones?

I was addressing the previous comment to Douglas Clark @ 61.

CuriousFreedom: “And aside from that fact, we have to ask why they would pass through not just one, but often multiple safe countries to claim asylum in the UK rather then obey the convention?”

At the risk of stating the obvious: because they arrive on a plane.

If you are being chased by government-sanctioned thugs, the last place you want to be is driving along a bandit-infested track toward the border. The countryside is the most dangerous and lawless place in most wartorn countries – just look at Afghanistan – and in many parts of the world the thugs can also operate with impunity both sides of the border anyway.

In most cases, the best way out is by the first plane – and most planes from third world countries go to the former colonial capital, not the geographically nearest safe country, since that is where the people with money in those countries typically go on business.

“At the risk of stating the obvious: because they arrive on a plane.”

Which air line runs scheduled/chartered flights between Somalia/Afghanistan/Dem Congo/Iraq etc?

@jungle

“At the risk of stating the obvious: because they arrive on a plane.”

No. Curious Freedom has proved that this is just surreal nonsense hasn’t it?

Trofim: “People in social services of my acquaintance also seem to like Somalis least, for similar reasons. All my informants in my experience were card-carrying multiculturalists originally.”

So in essence you’re saying that basically it’s OK to be racist against Somalis because they really are racially bad?

It’s pretty much the same argument a Polish girl once put to me out of the blue about “those Africans” (i.e. black people), claiming that hating them on sight and refusing to allow them in the house was OK because they really did commit lots of violent crime – she’d heard loads of stories from friends about them mugging Poles in London.

So in essence you’re saying that basically it’s OK to be racist against Somalis because they really are racially bad?

I don’t think that’s necessarily fair. “The people I know who work in providing services to refugees say that they find Somalis more problematic to deal with than people from other refugee groups” isn’t in itself a racist statement, and if true, it does have implications for public policy. Not “we shouldn’t let them in”, but “we should provide Somali refugees with more help in settling into UK culture than we’d provide for people from other societies”.

(sure, I’d be more convinced of the commenter’s good faith rather than repetition of hearsay if it were said by someone who worked directly in providing services to refugees, under their own name, and preferably backed up with evidence.)

“in a fantasy world of easy certainties (the 1950’s)”

Yep. Death and destruction on a massive scale had destroyed Europe, half a generation never came back from war. Hundreds of thousands of orphaned children, displaced peaople and broken families, an austerity package that makes the current recesion look like a day at the beach, rationing, an entire country to rebuild, the beggining of the cold war and the nuclear arms race. Compared to the 1950s, the 00s are a picnic.
It’s you that lives in a fantasy world of easy certainties

“Which air line runs scheduled/chartered flights between Somalia/Afghanistan/Dem Congo/Iraq etc”

Emirates, Emirates, Air France, Alitalia. All scheduled.

“most planes from third world countries go to the former colonial capital, not the geographically nearest safe country”

Er, no they don’t. Most African airlines have woeful safety standards, which means they aren’t allowed in European air space. You need to go by a fairly circuotous route to get from Somalia to the UK by air.

“Emirates, Emirates, Air France, Alitalia. All scheduled”

Rubbish, you can’t even enter Mogadishu into the destination box of Emirates flight finder.

So taking a Somali as an example – how do they book their flight to London, and (now stooping just a little bit) having sold their goat and their chickens and found they still can’t quite afford the ticket how do they pay?

@76 – they’re obviously more Internet savvy than you.

@76, Daallo Airlines of Djibouti is under common ownership with Emirates. Their online booking appears to be broken at the moment, but they fly from several cities in Somalia to LGW via Djibouti. There are travel agents in Somalia who can book you onto their flights in exchange for cash.

You can get a return flight from London to Mumbai for £300 at the moment, and I doubt Daallo’s fares will be much more than that. Even for someone in a desperately poor country, laying your hands on £300 isn’t impossible (it’s roughly annual GDP, so the equivalent of someone in the UK having £15,000ish in cash).

@ 77 yeah, right.

@78 Wouldn’t going via India/Djibouti indicate they were contravening the first safe country requirement?

So why then are there any Somali refugees in the UK?

(Ignoring of course the possibility that they can of course hop in a skiff, sail up the Suez, through the med, across the Bay of Biscay and into Plymouth Harbour)

I don’t pick on Somalis in particular but they do illustrate a point.

pagar @ 65 and trofim @ 66.

You are both up your arses.

I’m in Dubai at the moment. ”Immigration” has totally transformed this place.
Though it’s not really immigration, as most for them have no rights and are only granted tempory residence.
But you can hardly see any real Emeraties. They seem to stick to the shopping malls and inside their air-conditioned 4×4’s.
They certainly don’t travel on the busses with all the migrant workers who make up over 90% of the population.

It looks like a slave society, but is quite fascinating to see.

@ douglas clark

**“I don’t much care for your Wikipedia definition of nationalism.”**

Of course you don’t; you don’t care much for the truth or anything that proves what a hypocritical racist fool you are.

**“as far as I am concerned, as far as my party is concerned, if you live here, and say you are a Scot, then you are a Scot.”**

If anyone and everyone is a Scot why bother calling your party the Scottish National Party?

What not just National Party? What difference does the Scottish bit make?

**“It is perhaps why I have absolutely no difficulty in supporting an SNP candidate, such as Osama Saeed.”**

As an Englishman, am I welcome in your party? Would I be welcome to stand for the SNP? Would you support me as an Englishmen standing for office in Scotland?

**“Why the silence on your political affiliation?”**

You insult me without being able to give any reason why. You think you can decide which opinions are worthy of a public forum. You are not genuine. You are dishonest.

Consequently I don’t much like you and I certainly don’t answer to you.

So quite frankly it’s none of your business to be curious about anything relating to me or to ask me anything at all.

**“Could it be, shock horror, that you subscribe to some sort of racist party?”**

Like the SNP maybe? The English hating racists.

**“I am not really very interested in debating a racist”**]

Neither am I. Especially one so brazen as you.

**“You have made the cardinal error of assuming that it’s just me and thee that are having this discussion.”**

Hardly you racist clown.

**“So, so far, how do you see the score?”**

Well I think people can see that you a self righteous racist that comes up with bizarre comments including assigning a random sex to Afghani asylum seekers for no sane reason; when you are not lying and making stuff up that I am supposed to have said that is.

**“Therefore, any country that has access to the sea, say Tonga, has a direct oceanic route to the UK, without passing through another country”**

Except the facts show that only 1 in 3 asylum seekers claim asylum at the port of entry as they would be required to and facts show that huge number that smuggle themselves in to UK illegally on the back of lorries to then claim asylum.
And as I said above, it is the law and convention that they go to the first safe country and that means the first safe country that borders them; not where they fancy the benefit system.

@ douglas clark

**“I really don’t think you have thought this through. Your initial position would appear to mean that the UK was uniquely only responsible for asylum seekers from Eire, as that is the only country that we share a common border with. And, obviously vice versa.”**

I know racists like you are generally not bright, but I had already illustrated the point and included countries such as Holland and Belgium.

@ sevillista

**“surreal invention = the aeroplane, which enables people to travel between two different countries without passing through others on the way
It’s just too surreal and clearly nonsense.”**

What crap. We all know how the majority come here in reality:

“The Border and Immigration Agency’s regional director, Tony Smith, said:

“Anyone found to be in the UK illegally should know that we will take steps to deport them.

“Our border with France is one of the toughest in the world. Last year we searched over 1m lorries, stopped a record 18,000 people crossing the channel illegally and removed record numbers of illegal immigrants from the UK.”

He said as many as 13,000 people were caught hiding in lorries at major ports, particularly Calais.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/31/ukcrime.immigration

“A significant number of people are smuggled into Britain undetected. According to the Home Office, some 75 per cent of them are believed to be smuggled by gangs. In the year 2000 about 47,000 were detected (vii) . Half this number rounded to 25,000 per year would be a very low estimate for those undetected since, at Dover for example, only one truck in 100 is searched.”

http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/9_3_PresentFutureScaleofImmigration.pdf

**“I responded to that point, by drawing your attention to the ability of people to travel by air or sea, showing that your point is demonstrably false.”**

See above, and see the figures of how many are claiming asylum in the UK each year.

**“You come up with lengthy essays every post that don’t easily allow quotes.”**

So you just make up your own then? Much easier isn’t it?!

+”It is, I think, well known that the Daily Mail wishes fervently that it lived in a fantasy world of easy certainties (the 1950’s”

“Go back to the Daily Mail’s favourite period, the 1950s”

Talk about poisoning the well, eh. The technique works very well, though. All the references I ever hear from youngsters in the media repeat the same ludicrous stereotypes. If you want to know what the 1950’s were like, best to ask those who grew up then. Would that include Unity?

douglas clark @ 80

@ 72. I am citing from hearsay because I have not worked with many Somalis myself. And my informants, are not, of course, in a position to voice their own opinions themelves. To do so would not, to put in mildly, help their careers. Official policy is that all cultures are equally, well, valid, I suppose, and woe betide anyone who’s opinion varies from that.
On the other hand, Unity voices opinions regarded favourably by the powers that be – I would have thought he could afford to use his real name.

@curious

“What crap. We all know how the majority come here”

And where are your statistics that allow you to make such a definitive statement?

You’ve told me lots get caught trying to enter the UK from France on the French side of the border.

That tells us little about how asylum seekers who manage to get into Britain arrive here and does not allow you to state that only a minority come via airports.

You have a gut feeling. That is all.

“So you just make up your own then”

I’ll repeat the question – do you think the UK is a soft-touch on immigration? Or do you think immigration control is strict?

Maybe I have problems understanding you, but it appears to me you are arguing the former with your contributions.

@curious

After a bit of digging I’ve found some stats on asylum applications at port of entry.

They’re a little dated (from 2000-01), but I hope they are still informative http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/2001/may/11/asylum-seekers.

They show that in 2000-01, there were 12,000 asylum claims made at airports (including 7,765 made at Heathrow), out of 23,935 claims made at the point of entry. So a majority of those making port-of-entry claims in 2000-01 arrived by air.

Unfortunately, I can’t find more up-to-date stats (worth FOIing?).

Now, I’m sure you will claim this is irrelevant, and point to the fact it is only 16% of the 74,850 total claims for asylum made in 2000-01.

However, you cannot assume all of 50,951 applicants not applying at the port-of-entry did not arrive by air.

We have no data on how many people legally entered the UK on student or tourist visas (or indeed without visas) or on forged documents at airports in 2000-01 who later went on to claim asylum. We also have no data on how many people who applied for asylum in 2000-01 not applying at port-of-entry arrived prior to April 2000.

To evaluate your claim, we need this data. The fact this data does not exist does not prove your assertion that ” the vast majority of the applicants in the chart you produce must have passed through safe countries to get here and have therefore breached the convention.”. It proves we do not know.

Damon 81

You really can’t use Dubai as an example of a healthy immigration policy.

No one gets citizenship except the current nationals. You can marry one, but doesn’t get your citizenship.
You can be born there – also doesn’t help.

The only right you can get is the right to reside, and that can eb taken away at the drop of a hat. Like by losing your job, or by the application of their legal system, which is not like ours.

Having said that, crime in the street is minimal, because folks don’t want to be thrown out and lose the gravy train. Whether it’s the asian labourers exploited and with a terrible nd hushed up death rate and safety record, through the the western people who head up the growing companies: sitting under a board of directors who will likely be 100% nationals.

You mentioned a slave society… maybe it is in a kind of way ?

Curious Freedom @ 82,

Or the rest of your diatribes come to that.

You say this:

If anyone and everyone is a Scot why bother calling your party the Scottish National Party?

Which is not what I said.

I said:

Just to be very boring on the subject, as far as I am concerned, as far as my party is concerned, if you live here, and say you are a Scot, then you are a Scot.

Did you miss the, “if you live here” bit?

And the bit about “and say you are a Scot”?

Both of these are restrictive definitions. I know Asians that wear kilts, and I wouldn’t be seen dead in one. I know Asians that vote SNP.

Anyway, you shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this:

Hardly you racist clown.

What, me?

This is turning the English language on it’s fucking head. It is me that is saying that I don’t care about races and stuff. It is you saying that you do.

I do rather suspect you are a very high ranking member of the BNP. Your incisive logic, wit and charm is what got you there.

@ sevillista

We know only 1 in 3 claims at the port of entry and that the rest claim when they are already in the UK.

The figures I gave above show that the ONS and home office detected 47,000 illegal entries in 2001 and the figures since seem to average out around 15,000 detected illegal entries. Compare those figures with number claiming asylum.
Also consider just how many civilian airlines are operating out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia direct to the UK and what visa the traveler would need to board the flight to the UK.

In fact, for the past 10 years there have been no direct flights between Afghanistan and the UK so that wipes out your plane theory for the 5th biggest claiming group, and for obvious reasons, it also wipes out the boat theory.

Can you see the implications?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/5236571/Direct-flights-between-Afghanistan-and-UK-to-return.html

@ douglas clark

**“Did you miss the, “if you live here” bit?..And the bit about “and say you are a Scot”?”**

So if anyone can arrive in Scotland and say they are a Scot then you are effectively saying that are no Scottish people in reality and so, like I said, why bother with the Scottish bit if everyone is Scottish anyway?

I could move to Scotland and say I am a Scot; but I am clearly am not and I could just imagine the reaction in a Gorbells pub if I tried it and told them I was just as Scottish as they were!

**“Anyway, you shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this:”**

Don’t you like it? What a shame. Boo-hoo or the like.

**“This is turning the English language on it’s fucking head. It is me that is saying that I don’t care about races and stuff. It is you saying that you do.”**

Not at all; I haven’t mentioned race once but you manage to call me a racist whereas you admit you are a member of the Scottish equivalent of the BNP and cannot answer a few simple questions:

As an Englishman, am I welcome in your party? Would I be welcome to stand for the SNP? Would you support me as an Englishmen standing for office in Scotland?

Why not?

**“I do rather suspect you are a very high ranking member of the BNP. Your incisive logic, wit and charm is what got you there.”**

I have already said that you are a bizarre fantasist who pulls things out of his arse and calls them fact and here you are it again!

What an odd racist you are.

Curious Freedom,

You are beyond help.

Not at all; I haven’t mentioned race once but you manage to call me a racist whereas you admit you are a member of the Scottish equivalent of the BNP and cannot answer a few simple questions

What is this all about then?

Coming from a racist Scottish nationalist who has been answered in full, yet refused to show any reciprocity in answer in the relevant thread, I am left with no choice but to repeat my previous response to you in lieu of this claim and your claim that you are not racist / don’t hate the English:

“Oh what an absurd lie! You can’t wait to break away from the English. Why is that again?! As an Englishman, am I welcome in your party? Would I be welcome to stand for the SNP?

No, Curious Freedom, you would not be particularily welcomed because you are a complete lunatic. It’d be quite surprising if any political party whatsoever gave you house room. However on the general question of whether or not English folk can join the SNP, I’ve already answered that. Yes they can.

More or less, yes. It applies equally to WASPs that live here too.

@ 92 “Curious Freedom, You are beyond help.” Well I’m sorry, Mr Clark, but I really must take issue with your choice of words, here. I feel that “Curious Freedom, you’re a total fucking moron” would have been far more apparopriate.

@ 91 “So if anyone can arrive in Scotland and say they are a Scot then you are effectively saying that are no Scottish people in reality and so, like I said, why bother with the Scottish bit if everyone is Scottish anyway?” This sentence should clearly come with a health warning as the level of STUPID contained in it is so high that reading it could probably cause nausea, vomiting or something more serious. To examine the key points individually:

“if anyone can arrive in Scotland and say they are a Scot then you are effectively saying that are no Scottish people in reality” well, it would appear that he’s actually saying almost the opposite, ie that, potentially, everyone can be Scottish, provided they live there.

“why bother with the Scottish bit if everyone is Scottish anyway?” Now this seems to contradict your idea that he’s saying “there are no Scottish people in reality” but there are 2 more important points; firstly, he didn’t say “everyone is Scottish anyway,” he said that anyone who lives in Scotland and identifies him/herself as Scottish is, in the eyes of the SNP, Scottish. Secondly, I think they use the word “Scottish” as the first word in the title of the Scottish National Party because it’s a party which campaigns in Scotland and which, at least as I understand it, seeks to promote policies which it believes to be in the best interests of people who live in Scotland. They stand in elections in Scotland. They seek votes from people who live in Scotland. I think there’s a fairly strong Scottish theme running through the whole enterprise. Use of the word “Scottish” in this context doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying CuriousfFreedom is completely wrong in his comparison of the SNP and the BNP. For example, they both have the letters N and P in the most commonly used abreviations of their titles. As if this shocking revelation wasn’t enough, If we look a little deeper and consider the full titles:

British National Party
Scottish National Party

we see that they have a total of 17 letters in common. This is obviously conclusive proof that Alex Salmond and Nick Griffin are the same person. Is that mad enough for you, Curious Freedom?

@ Mr F

**“Well I’m sorry, Mr Clark, but I really must take issue with your choice of words, here. I feel that “Curious Freedom, you’re a total fucking moron” would have been far more apparopriate.”**

Do you really?

And just who do you think gives a fuck what an utter cunt like you has to say?

What a load of angry ranting shite.

If the SNP really believes that anyone and everyone is or could be Scottish simply by arriving in Scotland and saying “I am Scottish” then not are only have they effectively removed the actual existence of the Scots as a real entity but they are in breach of the trades description act by using the word nationalist in their party title.

But I see you are unable to answer some very simple questions here:

As an Englishman, am I welcome in your party? Would I be welcome to stand for the SNP as an Englishman?

What an odd pair of racist you are!

@ 94 Curious Freedom, not very bright, are you? Now, why draw attention to something as blindingly obvious as your shortcomings in the intelectual department? Well, you’re clearly not aware of them yourself, so I’ll try to help you by providing a few examples:

“If the SNP really believes that anyone and everyone is or could be Scottish simply by arriving in Scotland and saying “I am Scottish” then not are only have they effectively removed the actual existence of the Scots as a real entity” I’m pretty sure the logic’s a bit flawed here. Surely, if the SNP follows such a policy it’s working towards a potentially massive increase in the number of Scottish people. This would probably be generally accepted as the exact opposite of removing the Scots from existence. Of course, it depends on whether you adhere to their definition of “Scottish” or yours. I’m guesiing that they’ll probably stick to their definition, rather than adopting the one you put forward, on the grounds that:

a. They are Scottish and can define themselves however they like.

and

b. You’re a cunt.

“they are in breach of the trades description act by using the word nationalist in their party title.” Yeah, you see I’m fairly sure that particular piece of legislation doesn’t really apply here, mate.

“But I see you are unable to answer some very simple questions here:” You appear to be rather confused (again). You haven’t actually asked me any questions. The post to which you were responding was my first on this thread.

“As an Englishman, am I welcome in your party?” Well, it’s not my party, it’s Douglas Clark’s, but he has answered this question. More than once. The last time was in post 92 where he wrote:

“However on the general question of whether or not English folk can join the SNP, I’ve already answered that. Yes they can.”

That response is likely to be pretty clear to most people. What is it you don’t understand?

Now, I await your, no doubt, entertainingly idiotic, spluttering response which, I hope, will be sprinkled with gems such as ” then not are only have they” (in the absence of an edit button it may be a good idea for you to get a grown up to proof read your future posts).

I’m not going to waste my time with an idiotic hypocrite who says he admires “the ability to construct an argument without descending into abuse” whilst producing this vile drivel. You set the tone for my initial response to you.

It would seem quite obvious that if anyone is Scottish simply by merit of saying they are then there is no merit in being Scottish. That is being Scottish means nothing other then a self proclamation and / or a piece of paper. Something I know that many, many real Scots would find extremely offensive.

My question wasn’t answered; I didn’t ask I could join, of course I can I am a British citizen and would drain every penny from the SNP coffers if they tried to stop me; the question was would I be welcome and would I be welcome to stand as Englishman; That question is likely to be pretty clear to most people. What is it you don’t understand?

But to be perfectly honest, I couldn’t care less about your answer, what you think, what you say or about you in the slightest. It makes no difference at all to me, my life or anyone else’s. You are an insignificant nobody.

You are clearly just another internet clown who enjoys ranting and raving online, you know mouthing off and getting rid of lots of hate, and generally saying things that he wouldn’t have the sphincter to say to people’s faces in real life.

And coming as it does at the time it does, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if Mr F were really an alter-ego for Douglas Clark.

Either ways, whatever, who gives a fuck?

@ 96 “I’m not going to waste my time with an idiotic hypocrite”
“I couldn’t care less about your answer”
“Either ways, whatever, who gives a fuck?”

So why the 21 line response? You’re getting confused again, aren’t you?

“It would seem quite obvious that if anyone is Scottish simply by merit of saying they are then there is no merit in being Scottish” Who said there was/is/should be any “merit” in being Scottish? What do you mean by “merit”? What on earth are you talking about?

“the question was would I be welcome and would I be welcome to stand as Englishman; That question is likely to be pretty clear to most people. What is it you don’t understand?” I don’t understand why you’d ask such an inane question. “Would I be welcome” was clearly, and pretty reasonably, interpreted by Douglas Clark (who I am not) as “would I be allowed to join?” Now, as for “welcome” what would you accept as convincing proof that the answer would be in the affirmative? Depositions (probably witnessed by the solicitor you’re employing in your Trades Descriptions Act case, mentioned earlier in the thread) from 51% or more of current SNP membership giving a firm undertaking to offer you tea, biscuits and a comfy chair at all party meetings? Would you find that sufficiently welcoming? Asking if you’d be allowed to join then changing the emphasis of the question to take it to a level of subjectivity that it’s impossible to provide objective evidence to support any answer doesn’t count as logical argument. It just means you’re (still) a cunt.

“That is being Scottish means nothing other then a self proclamation and / or a piece of paper. Something I know that many, many real Scots would find extremely offensive.” Well, what is Nationality? It’s pretty much the possession of a piece of paper, in one form or another, isn’t it? As for “many many real Scots” is “many, many” twice as many as “many” or is it “many” squared? What are “real” Scots? Give us your definition (maybe it will be such a good definition that the SNP will adopt is part of their constitution). Then produce some evidence to support your claim that “many many real Scots” would find your piece of paper/self proclamation hypothesis offensive. I’m guessing that you may find that rather difficult.

“You are clearly just another internet clown who enjoys ranting and raving online, you know mouthing off and getting rid of lots of hate” Yep, you’ve got my number haven’t you? I only wish I had your ability to construct a logical argument and not to get wound up about someone taking the piss out of the stupid unsupported statements I make and end up ranting …….. oh, wait a minute.

@ 97

Douglas, I didn’t read a single word of that long post; not a word. As I doubt anyone ever will.

You are an insignificant little man and you fall behind when you use alter-egos to abuse instead of being honest in debate.

Nice to see how these immigration thread are turning out…

@ Daniel Hoffmann-Gill

Nice to see you have stopped spoofing me, Chairman Moo and yourself and picked yet another identity to post with.

Let’s just hope you stick to this one.

No spoofing I’m afraid, too busy for that and all DHG was is the initials of my name Daniel Hoffmann-Gill, so hardly a new id is it?

Cheers for your interest.

@ Daniel Hoffmann-Gill

Well what a surprise, another lying twat.

I had worked out what your silly pretentious little name abbreviated to and who you were posting as before.

Hopefully you have moved forward from your idiotic accusations and spoofing games and come back with your new ID accompanied with a clean slate; if so disregard my first and second lines as past tense and redundant dander.

We’ll see…

It seems to me you are confusing this forum with a place for you to shout personal abuse at people and you make yourself look silly and judgemental by calling someone’s name pretentious when you don’t even use your real one, unless that it you do have really pretentious parents and Curious Freedom is your real name.

I’m glad you have however, managed to figure out that DHG was and is an abbreviation.

It seems to me that that is your forte having googled you and seen some of the quite spectacular abuse you hand out online and even here, are you really going to deny that?

Are you really trying to deny spoofing other people?!

Curious Freedom is my real name as far as your are concerned, but you can call me Sir if you want; and it stays that way because of demented weridos like you on the interent!

Au revoir sweetheart!

Well, you’ve been pretty good with the abuse yourself round these parts, not that two wrongs make a right, how about stop attacking me and just discuss the issues?

And no need to justify hiding behind a fake name, fine by me but don’t cast aspersions at others, that’s hypocritical and I find it odd I am now your sweetheart.

I’m ready whenever you are lover.

XXXX

Good for you.

Do you want to start then, or shall I? It doesn’t matter if other people aren’t looking, and that I have already done it with most of them already. I am all yours now sweetpea.

So do you want me to ease in gently or just go hell for leather?

Thanks for fantasising about me in this faintly homophobic way but as you know, I’m happily in a relationship with a lovely lady so best to save your amorous intentions for someone more receptive?

No my little hoffmeister, actually I didn’t know you were in a relationship.

But it doesn’t matter sweetpea, our relationship will be very different; we are building the foundation of it now and I am sure it will be rock solid from day one and firm from the bottom up.

Are you ready to talk now? Just one on one is fine.

It doesnt have to be a mass debate.

XXXXXX

Please see comment 109

What is it you want me to see my little hoffmeister?

Do you want me to get your point?

Please see comment 111

Like a bird of paradise I set you free yet you keep coming back to me my sweet little hoffers!

What can it mean?!

No idea what you’re talking about.

Best to drop it.

What would you like me to drop my sweet flower?

You really cannot seem to get enough of me my little Hoffmeister, insatiable ?!

Like a bird of paradise I set you free…

XXXXX

Your pestering me.

Which is odd.

Bye now!

Come now sweetpea, we are past the hair pulling stage.

You keep coming back to taste my words; admit it my little hoffers, you can’t get enough of it.

Like a bird of paradise I set you free…

XXXXX

You are deluded.

Obsess about someone else.

Bye now.

Back so soon my precious one? Nice to hear from you too sweetpea.

It’s OK, no need to fear now my sweet little hoffers, you can be open.

And don’t worry, don’t be so anxious, I am here to stay and I will defend you from everyone on this site; no will be able to mess with my little hoffmeister without answering to me to first.

I will be there for you, these fine words I swear to you.

XXXXX

Cut and paste idiocy.

Now don’t be mean my little cherry; it’s OK I know you have issues.

But we are working through them and our relationship is solid. I will not let anyone else hurt you here my little hoffmeister.

But for now, you hang up first…

Good grief, you are weird aren’t you?

Obsessed.

You can test our relationship as much as you like my little hoffmeister, it’s strong!

Is that why you keep coming back too? Afraid I have forgotten you so fast?

Never! Never! Never! We are a team now hoffers, my sweet little hoffers, you lead the way into the charge and I will defend your honour; we have so much ahead of us.

But for now sweetpea, you hang up first…

Poor, deluded fool.

This must mean so much to you.

Wow, the last word is yours, jeepers, you must be proud.

Oh Daniel! Give me some tough love! I can take it!

We have such a promising future together hoffers, and this variety is just the spice we need.

I cannot wait to defend your honour here…

Are you really hanging up my sweet little hoffers?…