Incitement to religious hatred....and other racist behaviour
Discussion
Devil2575 said:
Fozziebear said:
singlecoil said:
Devil2575 said:
It's an opinion...
Once again you are having to defend your statements. Perhaps a little thinking before posting wouldn't go amiss?
bmw535i said:
Elysium said:
I haven't assumed anything or shown an unbalanced view. Nor have I shown 'slanted outrage'.
I have simply asked why you support this policy. You have chosen not to answer.
As you have said I have little knowledge in this area. However, the articles I have read, including the one you have posted, suggest very clearly that we are failing these children.
Wikipedia notes that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate accepts that children's asylum applications receive less attention that adults because it is expected that they will be provided with 'discretionary leave to remain':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccompanied_asylum...
The problem with this approach is that by the time they are adults and their asylum applications are properly considered, they will have spent their formative years in our society learning how to be British. Their country of origin will no longer be their home and they will be ill equipped to survive as adults in that environment.
I can see that it is a difficult area, but it seems unnecessarily cruel to raise these young adults in our country and then cast them aside as soon as they are legally old enough to be independent. I would like to understand why you believe it to be necessary and why you support this policy.
Unfortunately I don't think you are going to tell me. In which case I will need to draw my own conclusions about your position.
So now it is cruel to give asylum to a child? I suppose we could refuse asylum to all children to avoid this? Or do we allow asylum for every applicant that ever applies? I'm sure you can see both of the above options are not sensible, fair or feasible.I have simply asked why you support this policy. You have chosen not to answer.
As you have said I have little knowledge in this area. However, the articles I have read, including the one you have posted, suggest very clearly that we are failing these children.
Wikipedia notes that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate accepts that children's asylum applications receive less attention that adults because it is expected that they will be provided with 'discretionary leave to remain':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccompanied_asylum...
The problem with this approach is that by the time they are adults and their asylum applications are properly considered, they will have spent their formative years in our society learning how to be British. Their country of origin will no longer be their home and they will be ill equipped to survive as adults in that environment.
I can see that it is a difficult area, but it seems unnecessarily cruel to raise these young adults in our country and then cast them aside as soon as they are legally old enough to be independent. I would like to understand why you believe it to be necessary and why you support this policy.
Unfortunately I don't think you are going to tell me. In which case I will need to draw my own conclusions about your position.
The system we currently have is the best we can have for our country - each case is judged on its merits. It is also often the case that migrants lie to get into the country. I had a case last week where an African in this country wanted his mother to visit for a month. I assisted him preparing his application and compiling the necessary evidence etc and sent the application off. Last week he was informed that his mother was refused entry and banned for 10 years. He had altered a bank statement of hers which the Home Office had checked up on with the bank in Africa.
I can see why he did it because he had already had 3 applications refused for silly reasons. The HO want to see things like photos of the applicant with family members back home to prove family ties, letters, bank statements, birth certificates, savings, employment contracts, mortgage/rental agreements etc etc. If you cannot supply enough evidence that the applicant can be financially supported during their visit and that they will leave at the end - no entry.
The fact that it is difficult for non-eu migrants to gain entry to the IK is that it is easier to control those numbers than EU migrants. You may not like the system, but it's the best one we have.
You state that their formative years will be spent in the UK. Are you even aware of the ages of most UASC?
So in answer to your questions it is not cruel to offer shelter to children and we should not automatically accept all applications. The authorities should recognise that sending vulnerable young adults back to a country they have not grown up in and do not understand is inhumane. It seems to me that the answer is to assess their original applications properly and not defer the decision to return them until it is easier, as seems to be the current strategy.
Clearly you work in this area and I do not. As an outsider, it seems that you and many others have become inured to the human impact caused by an imperfect system.
Is it your view that controlling EU migration will make space for a more compassionate approach to those in greater need from outside the EU? I so, then I think that is actually quite admirable.
Elysium said:
All applications should be considered on merit, but the authorities admit that they do not consider child asylum applications in great detail because they will be given leave to remain in any event. So our default is to allow child migrants to stay in this country, which seems like a kindness, until you consider the fact that the years they spend here will change them and make them ill equipped to be returned to their former country.
You are only highlighting your ignorance here I'm afraid. What is your source for this apparent blase approach of the Home Office? Are you saying all children are granted asylum?Elysium said:
So in answer to your questions it is not cruel to offer shelter to children and we should not automatically accept all applications. The authorities should recognise that sending vulnerable young adults back to a country they have not grown up in and do not understand is inhumane. It seems to me that the answer is to assess their original applications properly and not defer the decision to return them until it is easier, as seems to be the current strategy.
It is only your left wing opinion that it is inhumane. You seem to suggest we deport more children on arrival which would be inhumane if they were in danger. Your viewpoint contradicts itself.Elysium said:
Clearly you work in this area and I do not. As an outsider, it seems that you and many others have become inured to the human impact caused by an imperfect system.
No I do not work in this area, but I know a little about it. It is clear you do not, nor do you have any basis for your views on it - apart from stuff you read in the Guardian I suspect. I have already said that the current system is the best one we have - there will never be a perfect one. Elysium said:
Is it your view that controlling EU migration will make space for a more compassionate approach to those in greater need from outside the EU? I so, then I think that is actually quite admirable.
No, it is my view that everybody trying to gain entry to the UK should be treated fairly. It is clear that in order to reduce net migration currently, this country concentrates on refusing entry to non EU migrants as it has no control over EU migrants. Ill give you an example of how slanted it is at the moment.
A young man comes to the UK from Nepal. He gets British citizenship by doing the life in uk test, the English test, the biometrics permit and paying £1300. If he passes, he gets his British passport. Several years later, after working in the UK, he decides to join the British Army.
He then decides to bring his wife to the UK. He suddenly realises he can't because he doesn't earn enough (£18,600). So now we have a guy who has paid tax for years in the UK, serves his country and now he isn't allowed his wife to live here. If he was European - no issues. If he had dependant children, he'd have to earn more to be able to bring them here.
That doesn't seem fair to me.
bmw535i said:
No, it is my view that everybody trying to gain entry to the UK should be treated fairly. It is clear that in order to reduce net migration currently, this country concentrates on refusing entry to non EU migrants as it has no control over EU migrants.
Ill give you an example of how slanted it is at the moment.
A young man comes to the UK from Nepal. He gets British citizenship by doing the life in uk test, the English test, the biometrics permit and paying £1300. If he passes, he gets his British passport. Several years later, after working in the UK, he decides to join the British Army.
He then decides to bring his wife to the UK. He suddenly realises he can't because he doesn't earn enough (£18,600). So now we have a guy who has paid tax for years in the UK, serves his country and now he isn't allowed his wife to live here. If he was European - no issues. If he had dependant children, he'd have to earn more to be able to bring them here.
That doesn't seem fair to me.
in your fictional scenario there, only a starting private will earn less than 18,600 at the beginningIll give you an example of how slanted it is at the moment.
A young man comes to the UK from Nepal. He gets British citizenship by doing the life in uk test, the English test, the biometrics permit and paying £1300. If he passes, he gets his British passport. Several years later, after working in the UK, he decides to join the British Army.
He then decides to bring his wife to the UK. He suddenly realises he can't because he doesn't earn enough (£18,600). So now we have a guy who has paid tax for years in the UK, serves his country and now he isn't allowed his wife to live here. If he was European - no issues. If he had dependant children, he'd have to earn more to be able to bring them here.
That doesn't seem fair to me.
how old is this guy to have lived in the UK long enough to get nationality, paid tax for years, still got a wife 'back home' and he's only a level 1 private? And you want him to have kids as well?
armed services personnel recruited outside of the UK (ie commonwealth, gurkhas etc) is another issue altogether, they need to be treated fairly, however that works out best
former armed services people recruited from outside the EU is another issue
non-EU migration is still pretty high, as much as 51% of all foreign immigration into UK though
Hugo a Gogo said:
in your fictional scenario there, only a starting private will earn less than 18,600 at the beginning
how old is this guy to have lived in the UK long enough to get nationality, paid tax for years, still got a wife 'back home' and he's only a level 1 private? And you want him to have kids as well?
armed services personnel recruited outside of the UK (ie commonwealth, gurkhas etc) is another issue altogether, they need to be treated fairly, however that works out best
former armed services people recruited from outside the EU is another issue
non-EU migration is still pretty high, as much as 51% of all foreign immigration into UK though
You do know that you can join the army up until age 33? This particular guy has been in the army for one year. He's been in UK since 2003. how old is this guy to have lived in the UK long enough to get nationality, paid tax for years, still got a wife 'back home' and he's only a level 1 private? And you want him to have kids as well?
armed services personnel recruited outside of the UK (ie commonwealth, gurkhas etc) is another issue altogether, they need to be treated fairly, however that works out best
former armed services people recruited from outside the EU is another issue
non-EU migration is still pretty high, as much as 51% of all foreign immigration into UK though
He wasn't recruited from outside of the UK
I can assure you none of it is fiction.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 15th February 07:53
bmw535i said:
Elysium said:
All applications should be considered on merit, but the authorities admit that they do not consider child asylum applications in great detail because they will be given leave to remain in any event. So our default is to allow child migrants to stay in this country, which seems like a kindness, until you consider the fact that the years they spend here will change them and make them ill equipped to be returned to their former country.
You are only highlighting your ignorance here I'm afraid. What is your source for this apparent blase approach of the Home Office? Are you saying all children are granted asylum?bmw535i said:
Elysium said:
So in answer to your questions it is not cruel to offer shelter to children and we should not automatically accept all applications. The authorities should recognise that sending vulnerable young adults back to a country they have not grown up in and do not understand is inhumane. It seems to me that the answer is to assess their original applications properly and not defer the decision to return them until it is easier, as seems to be the current strategy.
It is only your left wing opinion that it is inhumane. You seem to suggest we deport more children on arrival which would be inhumane if they were in danger. Your viewpoint contradicts itself.bmw535i said:
Elysium said:
Clearly you work in this area and I do not. As an outsider, it seems that you and many others have become inured to the human impact caused by an imperfect system.
No I do not work in this area, but I know a little about it. It is clear you do not, nor do you have any basis for your views on it - apart from stuff you read in the Guardian I suspect. I have already said that the current system is the best one we have - there will never be a perfect one.Arguing that the system is the 'best we have' is nonsensical. Of course it is the best we have. It is all that we have. Yet you defend it even as you admit it's failures.
Elysium said:
bmw535i said:
Is it your view that controlling EU migration will make space for a more compassionate approach to those in greater need from outside the EU? I so, then I think that is actually quite admirable.
No, it is my view that everybody trying to gain entry to the UK should be treated fairly. It is clear that in order to reduce net migration currently, this country concentrates on refusing entry to non EU migrants as it has no control over EU migrants. Ill give you an example of how slanted it is at the moment.
A young man comes to the UK from Nepal. He gets British citizenship by doing the life in uk test, the English test, the biometrics permit and paying £1300. If he passes, he gets his British passport. Several years later, after working in the UK, he decides to join the British Army.
He then decides to bring his wife to the UK. He suddenly realises he can't because he doesn't earn enough (£18,600). So now we have a guy who has paid tax for years in the UK, serves his country and now he isn't allowed his wife to live here. If he was European - no issues. If he had dependant children, he'd have to earn more to be able to bring them here.
That doesn't seem fair to me.
Edited by Elysium on Wednesday 15th February 07:58
1. Asylum is not the same as discretionary leave - as I'm sure you well know. Do you know how long discretionary leave lasts for? It's 2.5 years at most. Given that most (62% in 2015) unaccompanied child refugees are aged 16 - 17, they will only spend a year here if they are refused asylum. What they can do of course, is then apply as an adult.
The figures for 2015 for child refugees under 17 applying for asylum:
Total: 1568. 346 were refused. i.e no discretion, no UASC and no humanitarian protection. They will have been removed.
2. So when you say deal with them properly in the first place, what do you mean? The choice is fairly binary, either they stay or go. You are saying by keeping them here it is doing them a disservice because they will have to leave when they are 18 (in a lot of cases). Sadly we cannot keep them all for the reasons previously discussed in this thread (cost, paucity of foster carers etc).
3. The system we have for dealing with unaccompanied child refugees is balanced and in the best interests of the UK. You cannot give a better alternative apart from saying we should do it differently.
4. I am supportive of the system we have for unaccompanied children refugees. I am not so supportive of the system we employ to reduce net migration - my example above is indicative of that.
Did you know that in 2015 there was a 148% increase (in 2015) on the previous year for age disputed applications. It is very difficult for those making the decision to make the right one when there appears to be so many people trying to take advantage of the system.
The figures for 2015 for child refugees under 17 applying for asylum:
Total: 1568. 346 were refused. i.e no discretion, no UASC and no humanitarian protection. They will have been removed.
2. So when you say deal with them properly in the first place, what do you mean? The choice is fairly binary, either they stay or go. You are saying by keeping them here it is doing them a disservice because they will have to leave when they are 18 (in a lot of cases). Sadly we cannot keep them all for the reasons previously discussed in this thread (cost, paucity of foster carers etc).
3. The system we have for dealing with unaccompanied child refugees is balanced and in the best interests of the UK. You cannot give a better alternative apart from saying we should do it differently.
4. I am supportive of the system we have for unaccompanied children refugees. I am not so supportive of the system we employ to reduce net migration - my example above is indicative of that.
Did you know that in 2015 there was a 148% increase (in 2015) on the previous year for age disputed applications. It is very difficult for those making the decision to make the right one when there appears to be so many people trying to take advantage of the system.
bmw535i said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
in your fictional scenario there, only a starting private will earn less than 18,600 at the beginning
how old is this guy to have lived in the UK long enough to get nationality, paid tax for years, still got a wife 'back home' and he's only a level 1 private? And you want him to have kids as well?
armed services personnel recruited outside of the UK (ie commonwealth, gurkhas etc) is another issue altogether, they need to be treated fairly, however that works out best
former armed services people recruited from outside the EU is another issue
non-EU migration is still pretty high, as much as 51% of all foreign immigration into UK though
You do know that you can join the army up until age 33? This particular guy has been in the army for one year. He's been in UK since 2003. how old is this guy to have lived in the UK long enough to get nationality, paid tax for years, still got a wife 'back home' and he's only a level 1 private? And you want him to have kids as well?
armed services personnel recruited outside of the UK (ie commonwealth, gurkhas etc) is another issue altogether, they need to be treated fairly, however that works out best
former armed services people recruited from outside the EU is another issue
non-EU migration is still pretty high, as much as 51% of all foreign immigration into UK though
He wasn't recruited from outside of the UK
I can assure you none of it is fiction.
Edited by bmw535i on Wednesday 15th February 07:53
Hugo a Gogo said:
well then he'll earn more than 18,600
If he promotes yes. I said he could, not will.Do you understand how incremental progression and promotion works in the Army? You are only servinc to make yourself look stupid at the moment in a desperate attempt to recover from your stupid response to my "story"
Lets leave the Army out of all this please as its got nowt to do with this thread.
The MOD recruit and have recruited from the commonwealth for years. Being retired ex Army ( 25 years ) I know this and also experienced all the cultures that came with it both good and bad.
Bringing the Army in to this thread is not the done thing in my book.
The MOD recruit and have recruited from the commonwealth for years. Being retired ex Army ( 25 years ) I know this and also experienced all the cultures that came with it both good and bad.
Bringing the Army in to this thread is not the done thing in my book.
bmw535i said:
If he promotes yes. I said he could, not will.
Do you understand how incremental progression and promotion works in the Army? You are only servinc to make yourself look stupid at the moment in a desperate attempt to recover from your stupid response to my "story"
get over yourselfDo you understand how incremental progression and promotion works in the Army? You are only servinc to make yourself look stupid at the moment in a desperate attempt to recover from your stupid response to my "story"
you gave us this scenario, complaining about how unfair it is
the fella only has to do a year or two and he'll be earning enough, that's the way it goes
Hugo a Gogo said:
get over yourself
you gave us this scenario, complaining about how unfair it is
the fella only has to do a year or two and he'll be earning enough, that's the way it goes
1. Yes, and I think a lot of people would agree it's not entirely fair when comparing it to how an EU migrant would be treated. You were the one who decided to try and pick holes in the example itself.you gave us this scenario, complaining about how unfair it is
the fella only has to do a year or two and he'll be earning enough, that's the way it goes
2. Not neccessarily - as I've already mentioned.
Car mad enthusiast said:
Lets leave the Army out of all this please as its got nowt to do with this thread.
The MOD recruit and have recruited from the commonwealth for years. Being retired ex Army ( 25 years ) I know this and also experienced all the cultures that came with it both good and bad.
Bringing the Army in to this thread is not the done thing in my book.
I was not discussing the recruitment from the commonwealth. I used an example of someone being in this country and not being allowed family to live here because of the immigration rules. The guy could just as easily have worked at Tesco. I only know about this case because I have dealt with it personally.The MOD recruit and have recruited from the commonwealth for years. Being retired ex Army ( 25 years ) I know this and also experienced all the cultures that came with it both good and bad.
Bringing the Army in to this thread is not the done thing in my book.
Sadly, old Hugo has jumped on this in some desperate attempt to make out it's not true - I have no idea why and is now insisting this chap will be promoted and earn more very soon without having any knowledge (it seems) of the system.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff