Originally Posted by Infern0

so tell me del boy....imagine you're the prime minister, what would YOU do?


Well, below is an example of the type if idiocy I would NOT adopt. Some are playing ring-a-ring of roses on this one. To and fro, to build businesses in Iraq for instance.

Thursday December 27,2007 Express
Using taxpayers’ money to bribe bogus asylum seekers to leave Britain is bad enough. But to resort to the same tactic to persuade foreign criminals to go is unforgivable.
People who have come to this country from abroad and committed crime should not be in a position to strike
any kind of financial bargain with the British people. They should be put on the first plane home once their sentence has been served.

There should be no appeals system or appraisal of whether their “human rights” would be placed in jeopardy in their homeland. Deportation should take place as a matter of course.

To be paying thousands of pounds to foreign murderers, rapists and thieves to persuade them to leave is a disgusting misuse of public funds.

It is likely that wholesale official incompetence is at the root of this latest surrender to venality. But it may also be that unscrupulous lawyers are exploiting the Human Rights Act to prevent their clients being ejected from Britain – in which case, that is yet another reason to strike this legislation from the Statute Book.

Gordon Brown frequently refers to being given a strong “moral compass” by his parents. But if the Prime Minister cannot see that rewarding foreign criminals with taxpayers’ bounty is wrong, then he is clearly kidding himself about possessing an ethical code.

This monstrous scheme has no moral underpinnings at all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Right then - what would I do. -

1. Stop all acceptance of any immigrants for an investigative and review period from 3.15pm today.

2. Carry out a detailed investigation, independantly run, to discover exactly how many illegal immigrants exist in this country.

3. Deport all illegal immigrants at once, without appeal or delay of any sort. Deserving cases could re-apply from OUTSIDE the country
before re- entry.

4. All applications for entry must be approved BEFORE entry.

5. Applicants from alien cultures, intolerant of others, should not be considered, and on the basis of the vast numbers of Muslims already here, more of the same would not be accepted.

6. No applicant would be considered as an asylum seeker if the arrive from Europe or other countries safe for them. The first stop in a safe country should consider the claim for asylum, not pass them on to Britain.

7. Any immigrant who commits criminal offences would be deported without appeal or delay.

8. All immigrants who spread malice regarding Britain would be removed.

9. In all of the above cases, dependants would follow the deportees.

10. Xero tolerance on the above.





quote :-
" then, have a go at the other side of the argument, you've immigrated from some of the worlds biggest shitholes to be greeted by post such as you first in this thread....do you feel welcome? what would your response be?

"


1. Wherever I am from , even Britain, I know that I am not able to simply tap-dance into America , Aus etc.,

2. I would not seek to go to a country whose culture was one I could not accept.

3. I WOULD CLAIM ASYLUM IN THE VERY FIRST SAFE COUNTRY I STUMBLED INTO. NOT PASS THROUGH EUROPE TO FRANCE ETC., AND DEMAND ENTRY TO BRITAIN. WHY WOULD I DO THAT IF I WAS A GENUINE SEEKER OF SHELTER FROM THE STORM.
There are no as asylum seekers coming from France, That is a contradiction.

4. If I found myself in a safe haven, i would be apreciative, co-operative and supportive of my host country in every way.

5. I would not murder, bomb, conspire to same or in anyway betray or attack my host country.

6. I would never seek to replace the indiginous culture of my host country.


Those points would suit me for a start. OK, get in there and fill your boots!

First things first, who are we talking about here?

The United Nations Commission on Refugees has stated that, "A person ceases to be a refugee once he/she reaches his/her first country of safe refuge".

It seems to me, that most of the persons being discussed in this thread are not refugees but merely queue jumping illegal immigrants, who like any criminal should immediately disqualify themselves for any consideration as an immigrant.

Here in Australia, if any person arrives and is found to have knowingly provided false information on their application for a visa, they are immediately (next flight) returned to their country of origin and barred from re applying for entry for three years. Why aren't queue jumpers treated similarly?

We have a generous plan in place to accept refugees applying from overseas, those arriving illegally merely defer the chances of acceptance of those who have applied through the legitimate channels.

senojekips - right. And that is the model we should have been adopting. It makes sense. And my answer to Inferno contained in my last post is in response to what I think needs to be done to try to get the current awful situation under control. In France they set up special camps from which illegals from middle east and Africa can make nightly attacks upon our borders to gain illegal entry.