Should Sheffield follow Birmingham's lead and stop housing asylum seekers?

[boyfriday 21]

My assertion is that nationally 90% of people wish to stop assuylum seekers coming here, so the government should give people what they want....even you should be able to understand that. Also I did not tell you my views.

 

Could you tell us what your source is please?

 

Ironically a huge number of people wanted Gamu to stay for the sole reason she could sing and they felt sorry for her..that's how fickle the public are when presented with simple choices.

[berties_ears 10]

I love all this bickering!

 

There is a pretty big difference between immigrants who have applied for a visa and have qualifications, a confirmed job when they arrive and who can fill a position in our job market that no one in this country has been able to fill and an asylum seeker who has some how snook in to the country with no papers and no qualifications.

 

Either way, personally I think that during the hard times that we are in now I don't think we should be allowing either type to enter the country until we're sorted. How about concentrating on sorting out the mess we are in before making it any worse. If no one in the UK already is qualified to perform a niche job.... train someone. As for the Gamus of this world, if you had a visa and it expired and you're not eligable for a new one then hop on the plane. Being lead vocalist in the local church choir does not override national home office rules, however 'cute' simon cowell thinks you are.

 

Maybe the country would generally be in better shape if there was no such thing as benefits at all (except for genuine disability of course) How about you only get unemployment benefit if you go out and clear litter/clean up grafitti and do other community work for a minimum of 25 hours per week - regardless of whether you were born and bred here or you snook in on a lorry.

[Tomataheeed 10]

My assertion is that nationally 90% of people wish to stop assuylum seekers coming here, so the government should give people what they want....even you should be able to understand that.

 

90%...really ? Why is that they didn't vote for a party with that in their manifesto earlier this year then ?

 

570 asylum seekers in a big city - hardly a "flood".

 

And all those wanting to stop asylum seekers....do you really want the UK to welch on its obligations of the Geneva convention?

[Dickmint 10]

That's actually a different assertion to the ones I was referring to, but never mind. Does that 90% figure come with any more authority and basis than your previous reference to Sheffield having 100,000 asylum seekers?

 

If a poll said that 90% of the population want the right to build their own private nuclear arsenal in their garden, along with free instructions and materials which can be collected from the Post Office I'm pretty sure the government should not give them what they want. So the form of the government's mandate and whether it empowers them to resist the will of 90% of the population (a figure which I would very much doubt) is very relevant.

 

So you freely admit that in your view the government should not give the people what the vast majority of them want. In other words you believe in dictatorships. Did not you say that you did not wish to prove Godwin's Law correct?.

You really are mixed up aren't you!

[Tomataheeed 10]

The E.U treaty that we were forced into signing also states on it that immigrants have the right to be treated like a citizen of that country, so im sure that the way they are harshly treating them would bring on a claim for breach of 'human rights'.

 

What Spain Italy and France have done is pander to the local politics at certain times. I'd rather this country didn't do that.

[mattleonard 10]

There is a pretty big difference between immigrants who have applied for a visa and have qualifications, a confirmed job when they arrive and who can fill a position in our job market that no one in this country has been able to fill and an asylum seeker who has some how snook in to the country with no papers and no qualifications.

 

There is also a pretty big difference between immigrants coming from countries where they have access to education and the legal status which allows them to get qualifications and visas, as well as the luxury of time for the bureaucracy to run its course, and an asylum seeker who has snook out of their country because their life is in danger.

[mattleonard 10]

So you freely admit that in your view the government should not give the people what the vast majority of them want. In other words you believe in dictatorships.

 

If you look at the history of dictatorships you will find that in most cases the dictators got into power by giving the people what the vast majority of them wanted.

[boyfriday 21]

But British Citizens chose to stay in Britain as they are not fleeing a country due to fears of war or persecution,

So given they have reasons to leave their home countries it sounds reasonable that they would seek sanctuary in the one that provided the best possible outcome for them and their families-you would do the same wouldn't you?

i was just asking an honest question as to what a Wet and cold small island thats near Bankruptcy has that is so appealing to people who are fleeing from African countries due to persecution, that Spain and Portugal don't.

Well Spain & Portugal accept asylum seekers, but the reasons they come here are wide and varied-but probably the same reasons I believe Britain is the finest country in the world-freedom, tolerance and opportunity.

All they seems to get said is its money motivated, maybe if the generous payments stopped, they would still want to come here?

This is where you're argument loses credibility...they don't receive generous payments for anything, they receive enough for subsistence, that's it-no free cars, plasma televisions or massage parlour vouchers.

[Dickmint 10]

There is also a pretty big difference between immigrants coming from countries where they have access to education and the legal status which allows them to get qualifications and visas, as well as the luxury of time for the bureaucracy to run its course, and an asylum seeker who has snook out of their country because their life is in danger.

 

People whose lives are in danger in their own country should be man enough to stay and fight their oppressors to make their country safer. They should not be cowards and run away. Who will make their country fit to live in if they do not stay and do it!

[mattleonard 10]

In other words you believe in dictatorships.

 

Oh, and actually what I believe in is electing a body of representatives and giving them a mandate for a term of government. Do you not believe in that? How do you equate my belief with dictatorship?

[Dickmint 10]

If you look at the history of dictatorships you will find that in most cases the dictators got into power by giving the people what the vast majority of them wanted.

 

That is simply untrue. Dictators get into power by ruthlessely getting rid of the opposition. I agree that in the case of the Condems this was not true however.

[boyfriday 21]

Maybe the country would generally be in better shape if there was no such thing as benefits at all (except for genuine disability of course) How about you only get unemployment benefit if you go out and clear litter/clean up grafitti and do other community work for a minimum of 25 hours per week - regardless of whether you were born and bred here or you snook in on a lorry.

I'm surprised it's taken so long for someone to make this point. Whilst I don't agree with it, it would certainly be a far more effective means of addressing this country's economic woes than persecuting a few hundred asylum seekers.

 

Ps; you seem to have lumped immigrants in with asylum seekers, this city would collapse without the £140 million foreign students bring into our economy, that isn't counting the other foreigners who come here to work and pay taxes.