andygardener Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 In my opinion the above point from UKIP's Immigration and Asylum policy is open to considerable abuse. I do not trust a political party who have made much capital from scapegoating to wield legislative power in a responsible manner. Once those living in the UK under ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’ commit to the ‘Undertaking of Residence’ what would stop UKIP from introducing new discriminatory and authoritarian legislation to deliberately make it more and more difficult to avoid deportation? A bunch of existing laws against discrimination? I can't see a problem at all with foreigners who want to come here agreeing to abide by the law or be ejected. Why on earth would we want to import criminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 A bunch of existing laws against discrimination? I can't see a problem at all with foreigners who want to come here agreeing to abide by the law or be ejected. Why on earth would we want to import criminals? No, I didn't mean that. I have no desire to import criminals. First of all it has to be viewed alongside this UKIP intention - Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The scenario that concerns me is the creation of new, discriminatory legislation deliberately conceived to criminalise those living under ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’ and thus ensure their deportation before they can attain citizenship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 No, I didn't mean that. I have no desire to import criminals. First of all it has to be viewed alongside this UKIP intention - Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The scenario that concerns me is the creation of new, discriminatory legislation deliberately conceived to criminalise those living under ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’ and thus ensure their deportation before they can attain citizenship. Has their been any suggestion that UKIP intend to create a break with our entire legal tradition and criminalise any act that is legal to British people for foreigners? No. So you're worrying about a non-issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Has their been any suggestion that UKIP intend to create a break with our entire legal tradition and criminalise any act that is legal to British people for foreigners? No. So you're worrying about a non-issue. I'm not worried about it, I'm discussing it. I am citing an area of UKIP immigration policy that, in my opinion, could be open to abuse. UKIP have, again in my opinion, generated political capital from opportunism and scapegoating. It is an observable phenomenon that has happened and been documented before in times of austerity. I, therefore, find UKIP difficult to trust and ponder how far they are willing to go in their re-imagining of the human rights landscape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm not worried about it, I'm discussing it. I am citing an area of UKIP immigration policy that, in my opinion, could be open to abuse. UKIP have, again in my opinion, generated political capital from opportunism and scapegoating. It is an observable phenomenon that has happened and been documented before in times of austerity. I, therefore, find UKIP difficult to trust and ponder how far they are willing to go in their re-imagining of the human rights landscape. UKIP are one of those that throw out things to test public opinion but don't say how they're going to do it. I think they don't even know themselves how they are going to do the things they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I think they don't even know themselves how they are going to do the things they want to. They don't have to know. They're not going to get into government. They like to come across as tough on crime but they didn't even have a full slate of candidates for last month's PCC elections even though they only needed about 40 people across England and Wales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 UKIP are one of those that throw out things to test public opinion but don't say how they're going to do it. I think they don't even know themselves how they are going to do the things they want to. I don't know ..... them bloody politicians eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 [/b] So where do you think these people are housed and by whom?asylum seekers are given money and housed. granted they might get a smaller rate that those on JSA BUT they do get money. If they are asylum seekers them are not illegal immigrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 Now you've moved the goalposts. The post I responded to was "illegal immigrants", not asylum seekers, that's a different thing altogether. This is what asylum seekers can get http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/roap-benefits.pdf. Still don't think illegals can get anything LEGALLY. It’s not what they get legally that’s the problem, it’s what they get illegally, they can’t survive without somewhere to live and something to eat, this must be funded either by illegally claiming benefits, illegally working and depriving someone from legally do that job or through criminal means, all of which costs the tax payer. So it’s quite possible that in the long term it costs more to have them here than it would cost to find them and deport them. ---------- Post added 05-12-2012 at 12:48 ---------- If they are asylum seekers them are not illegal immigrants. Asylum seekers apear to turn into illegal immigrants. 124,000 asylum seekers 'missing' The number of asylum-seekers "lost" by immigration officials is equal to the population of Cambridge, a report by MPs has said. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=703025 Over 60,000 asylum seekers go missing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 It’s not what they get legally that’s the problem, it’s what they get illegally, they can’t survive without somewhere to live and something to eat, this must be funded either by illegally claiming benefits, illegally working and depriving someone from legally do that job or through criminal means, all of which costs the tax payer. So it’s quite possible that in the long term it costs more to have them here than it would cost to find them and deport them. ---------- Post added 05-12-2012 at 12:48 ---------- Asylum seekers apear to turn into illegal immigrants. 124,000 asylum seekers 'missing' The number of asylum-seekers "lost" by immigration officials is equal to the population of Cambridge, a report by MPs has said. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=703025 Over 60,000 asylum seekers go missing Just because they abscond, move house, cannot be traced or whatever does not mean they are no longer claiming asylum; they still have open asylum applications. Therefore they are not illegal immigrants. Those links are just newspaper talk to try and influence public opinion by scaremongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.