Cyclone Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Once say a pro gadaffi individual is here that individual wont be sent back to face death or torture, or the possibility of it. Is that supposed to make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Hmmm, that's not really an answer. It would be interesting to see what percentage of people moaning about this and saying such things actually contribute anything towards this nation. Here we go. Another ploy. Anyone against creating a multi-cultural hell hole must be an unemployed numpty. Wake up and smell the coffee.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe-b-1 Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 You're intimately familiar with a) the asylum application process in the UK? and b) the asylum application process in 146 other countries. You must be some sort of asylum expert. So are you saying that these 146 other countries take as many in as we do. I don't think so - do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 So are you saying that these 146 other countries take as many in as we do. I don't think so - do you? Many of them take in far more than we do, particularly the countries that are close to the areas of conflict. But don't let the facts get in the way of what you prefer to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe-b-1 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Many of them take in far more than we do, particularly the countries that are close to the areas of conflict. But don't let the facts get in the way of what you prefer to believe. What facts are those then? You haven't shown any and until you do (with a link) I will continue to believe that we take far more than our fair share. I mean the ones that stay for a significant amount of time (say 3 years or more) not ones that pass through, are passed on, are processed then rejected, etc. I have briefly loked for a link to support your claim but can't find one. Happy hunting. Scratch that look at this:- http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_asy_see-immigration-asylum-seekers : it appears that we are at the top of the list. There's your facts - don't let them get in the way of what you prefer to believe. Just let me clarify though - I do believe in letting asylum seekers in whilst they are in danger no matter what the length of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 The number accepted for 2009 was posted earlier in the thread, it was 6000 people. I had a look at your link, what does a value of 92? And is that data for the number seeking asylum or the number granted. And did you notice that there were about 120 countries missing from that list? http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics The highest number of applications for asylum in 2009 was lodged in France. More importantly though http://www.unhcr.org/4dfb66ef9.html GENEVA, June 20 (UNHCR) – A UNHCR report released today reveals deep imbalance in international support for the world's forcibly displaced, with a full four-fifths of the world's refugees being hosted by developing countries Pakistan, Iran and Syria have the largest refugee populations at 1.9 million, 1.1 million and 1 million respectively That makes us look a little silly really doesn't it. Oooh, how will we cope with 6000 people a year granted asylum... This comment seems to be appropriate for this thread UN High Commissioner for Refugees. "Fears about supposed floods of refugees in industrialized countries are being vastly overblown or mistakenly conflated with issues of migration. Meanwhile, it's poorer countries that are left having to pick up the burden." http://www.unhcr.org/4dfa11499.html A full report on the worldwide situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe-b-1 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 The number accepted for 2009 was posted earlier in the thread, it was 6000 people. I had a look at your link, what does a value of 92? And is that data for the number seeking asylum or the number granted. And did you notice that there were about 120 countries missing from that list? http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics More importantly though http://www.unhcr.org/4dfb66ef9.html That makes us look a little silly really doesn't it. Oooh, how will we cope with 6000 people a year granted asylum... This comment seems to be appropriate for this thread http://www.unhcr.org/4dfa11499.html A full report on the worldwide situation. Your links are about refugees (refugees don't even have to leave their own country) - this thread is about the ones who are asylum seekers. This link looks at it from different perspectives and puts us in 4th or 8th which is quite high out of over 190 countries in the world. http://swvg-refugees.org.uk/public/index.php/about-asylum/the-last-10-years Look forward to reading your reply next week when I get my lap top back from being updated by our technicians. (Taking it now; bye) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Refugees have by definition left their own country. You're confusing them with IDP's, internally displaced people. Refugees seek asylum. We don't really get very many of them. The figure of 4th is meaningless as being 4th out of the industrialised nations tells us very little. And that's all that this report considers. Here are the actual numbers for hosted refugees Major refugee hosting countries | end-2010 Pakistan 1,900,600 Islamic Rep. of Iran 1,073,400 (a) Syrian Arab Rep. 1,005,500 Germany 594,300 (a) Jordan 450,900 Kenya 402,900 Chad 347,900 (b) China 301,000 © United States 264,600 © United Kingdom 238,100 http://www.unhcr.org/4dfa11499.html The section specifically about asylum seekers starts on page 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Your links are about refugees (refugees don't even have to leave their own country) - this thread is about the ones who are asylum seekers. This link looks at it from different perspectives and puts us in 4th or 8th which is quite high out of over 190 countries in the world. http://swvg-refugees.org.uk/public/index.php/about-asylum/the-last-10-years Look forward to reading your reply next week when I get my lap top back from being updated by our technicians. (Taking it now; bye) Refugees are asylum seekers that have been granted leave to remain in the country that they've been granted asylum in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 £10bn legacy of shambles over asylum: 'Labour failings have left 250,000 illegals' Labour spent £2million every day on a shambolic asylum system which failed to remove hundreds of thousands of bogus claimants, reveals a blistering study. An audit of the last government’s record reveals how officials spent as much as £10billion processing applications as they struggled to cope with a surge in numbers. But only one in four of the 660,000 decisions made on asylum claims between 1997 and 2010 led to the applicant being removed. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029388/Labours-10bn-asylum-shambles-Failings-left-250-000-illegals.html#ixzz1VwWj8sSk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.