Benefit Cuts - an underhand way of hurting migrants by torys??

[Cyclone]

None are genuine, asylum seekers go to the nearest safe country not the biggest soft touch.

You didn't go and look up the numbers of asylum seekers in other countries did you. Wouldn't want information to interfere with your ignorant ranting.

[ricgem2002]

You didn't go and look up the numbers of asylum seekers in other countries did you. Wouldn't want information to interfere with your ignorant ranting.

why should he ?we all know they get the first plane here

[Bassman62]

So what you've got is benefit fraud (and only anecdotes) and some vague 'some companies only employ foreigners'.

So you've not shown that they are both taking benefits and jobs at all.

You're wrong again as usual.

In a news television report a british MP stood outside an East Anglian factory that once employed locals but now only employs Polish Speaking workers on lower wages than the locals received.

People like you are just as much enemys of the UK as are militant muslims.

[Bassman62]

why should he ?we all know they get the first plane here

Exactly whilst bypassing all other countries who aren't the soft teach that we are.

Fundings are cut left right and centre for UK citizens, pupils etc yet Cyclone and others of his ilk want the flood gates opening to all the dregs of the world.

[Bassman62]

You didn't go and look up the numbers of asylum seekers in other countries did you. Wouldn't want information to interfere with your ignorant ranting.

 

What's that got to do with our overloaded country?

There aren't any asylum seekers from countries adjacent to the UK, which part of that don't you understand?

[Space]

I for one most certainly do - wouldn't want any chavs or other undesirables moving into my road.

 

Seconded.. Wherever the do-gooders shift the scum of society, that area goes down the pan too.

[Conrod]

What's that got to do with our overloaded country?

There aren't any asylum seekers from countries adjacent to the UK, which part of that don't you understand?

This bit really gets me. If a Middle-Eastern country has issues, then neighbouring Middle Eastern countries are the ones that should expect to take refugees and asylum seekers. For an African country, it should be neighbouring African states. Having Western nations take 'quotas' of these economic migrants is a ridiculous situation (let's face it, the proportion who are genuine asylum seekers is miniscule - the vast majority have just rehearsed the lies they need to tell to move into a cushy country).

 

Does anybody remember when there was trouble in Eastern Europe just a few years ago and NATO was involved? Lots of people were unhomed, lots were in dire straights, but they didn't all hop on jets or into the back of wagons and try to get to England. Why was that?

 

Let's face it, England, like most of Europe, is a nicer place to live than the third world, offering creature comforts and luxuries that are beyond the dreams of most people in developing nations, so they want a piece of what we have. They'll travel half way round the world to get here, because they have friends and relatives who've already managed it and can tell them how to go about getting in, and they'll tell any lie they need to to get some bleeding hearted liberal fools to campaign on their behalf.

 

Britain is full, we're short of housing, jobs and public service resources. It's about time the wool-headed among us recognised that and accepted that England is place for English people, and the thrid world is a place for third world people.

No exceptions, no emotive special cases, just hard rules, because unless we apply hard rules they'll just keep flooding in until the third world is empty and countries like England are full to the brim.

[Berberis]

You didn't go and look up the numbers of asylum seekers in other countries did you. Wouldn't want information to interfere with your ignorant ranting.

 

How about if I look some figures up:

 

# 1 United Kingdom: 92

# 2 Germany: 88.4

# 3 United States: 86.4

# 4 France: 47.3

# 5 Canada: 42.7

# 6 Netherlands: 32.6

# 7 Austria: 30.1

# 8 Belgium: 24.5

# 9 Sweden: 23.5

# 10 Switzerland: 20.8

# 11 Czech Republic: 18

# 12 Norway: 14.8

= 13 Australia: 12.4

= 13 Denmark: 12.4

# 15 Ireland: 10.3

# 16 Italy: 9.8

# 17 Hungary: 9.6

# 18 Spain: 9.2

# 19 Slovakia: 8.2

# 20 Greece: 5.5

# 21 Poland: 4.5

= 22 Bulgaria: 2.4

= 22 Romania: 2.4

= 24 Finland: 1.7

= 24 New Zealand: 1.7

# 26 Luxembourg: 0.7

# 27 Japan: 0.4

# 28 Portugal: 0.2

Total: 612.5

 

DEFINITION: Thousands of asylum seekers coming into a nation in 2001.

 

SOURCE: OECD

 

Ref: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_asy_see-immigration-asylum-seekers

[Cyclone]

Exactly whilst bypassing all other countries who aren't the soft teach that we are.

Fundings are cut left right and centre for UK citizens, pupils etc yet Cyclone and others of his ilk want the flood gates opening to all the dregs of the world.

 

You'd be a lot more credible if you actually found out the facts about the floods of asylum seekers and the hoops they have to jump through. You're not interested though are you, you just want to keep ranting.

 

Think about this one, maybe they don't stop in France because they happen to speak a bit of English already. Or maybe they read one of your posts once on the internet and think that they'll be given a car, house and mobile phone when they arrive here.

[Cyclone]

What's that got to do with our overloaded country?

There aren't any asylum seekers from countries adjacent to the UK, which part of that don't you understand?

 

It would clearly show you that the vast majority of asylum seekers do indeed travel just a short distance, quite often just into the neighbouring country.

 

Of course the neighbouring country can't often support that many refugees and so we are signatory to several treaties that say we'll take our share of asylum seekers. All facts that I guess would be inconvenient to your world view and so will be carefully filtered out.