Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

Asylum seekers are the symptom of the disease. As well as treating the symptoms, personally I would advocate equal if not more so attention to be devoted to preventing the disease in the first place.

Hence Turkey needs to be tackled for not respecting Freedom of Speech ... etc. .... not expecting everybody else to have to deal wth its fallout!

[CopperLine]

It presupposes that we know what the disease is. What afflicts Turkey is not what afflicts Colombia. What 'afflicts' Sierra Leonese women is not what 'afflicts' Iranian men.

The topic of this thread though is asylum seekers and their treatment, not the cause of their original woes. By all means open a thread on what causes people to flee their homelands in fear - I wonder if Get Real will still say its a problem of their own making ?


I agree good medicine - or rather good public health policy - would seek to avoid or prevent the causes of the 'disease' in the first place. But it is equally true that good medicine does not refuse to act on a patient simply because the causes are unknown, not fully understood or intractable. We do not and should not expect doctors to refuse treatment for our broken leg by saying 'you brought that on yourself; had you not been playing football this wouldn't have happened, so I'm not treating you.'

[Get Real!]

Why do you only quote examples from Turkey, Sierra Leone, and Iran? American citizens are picked off the streets and condemned to Guantanamo without a lawyer! Where and how should these American citizens seek asylum?

Anyway, if a country does female circumcision because that’s the way it has always been in accordance with their faith, then that’s tough. If a country persecutes journalists and others critical of the regime then that’s tough. If a country is prejudiced against women because that’s the way it has always been then that’s tough too.

Anyone who goes against the well-instilled FLOW of a country RISKS getting persecuted and is therefore bringing the problem upon themselves.

If you don’t like a given regime just leave via the normal legal avenues but don’t be rebellious while living under that regime in case there are consequences. People are exiled for good reason…

[Bill]

What about people in war torn countries like Iraq for instance? So many people there need help and as we are responsible for their plight, I think we should allow those in greatest danger to live elsewhere. I am afraid that I am in the minority but we will have to agree to disagree on this one!!!

Have you not noticed the huge influx of Iraq and Palestine refugees in Cyprus recently.

The topic in question concerns the UK and I have to question the motives of a supposedly genuine asylum seeker that travels across so many countries that could offer refuge to them only for them to make a bee line for the UK.

If they were genuine they would be happy to be in any country rather than their own so why give all those other countries a miss ~ the answer is simple it's purely economical and nothing to do with finding a place of safety .

It's about time that the UK woke up and stopped being the immigrants utopia ~ there is no doubt that the UK is the best place to be due to it's soft approach to immigration by the asylum process and their need to pander to the immigrants needs often at the disadvantage of those living in the UK

I haven't voted as the question asked is incomplete.

Bill

[kurupetos]

It appears your a Guardian reader .
Your poll is not functional since it does not ask the question correctly and that should include the word GENUINE ASYLUM SEEKERS .
You open your statement by saying that None are illegal !!
May I correct you by saying that 99% ARE ILLEGAL !!
I'm of course talking about the UK illegal immigrants who come mostly via Europe and therefore are not genuine asylum seekers since they could have claimed asylum at the first port of call . They come to the UK because they considere it a soft touch with immediate benefits available .
Plus they hate our guts !!

Agreed!

Agreed too!

[CopperLine]

Get Real you really are making no sense at all now.

First, my examples were just that : examples. I could have mentioned cases from virtually every country in the world. There's no particular reason to select Turkey, Iran and Sierra Leone.

Second, US citizens have sought asylum elsewhere. In Canada, for example.

Third, your paragraph beginning " Anyway, if a country ....." is the standard way of rejecting (a) the notion of human rights and (b) rejecting the universality of those rights. So what you have just done is set yourself against the very basis of the modern human rights order. Your prerogative of course, but then you cannot claim human rights in relation to the Cyprus question whilst rejecting them in all other respects.

Let's see whether you really stand by what you've just said. Let's replace the word country in your paragraph for the word 'Turkey' and let's replace the particular abuses with ones carried out in Cyprus. Here goes :

If Turkey rules through invasion because that’s the way it has always been in accordance with their politics/character, then that’s tough. If Turkey persecutes Greek Cypriots and others critical of the regime then that’s tough. If Turkey is prejudiced against Greeks Cypriots because that’s the way it has always been then that’s tough too......Oh, and this is called the Get Real policy.

Methinks, however, that Get Real is talking nonsense and he know that he's talking nonsense.

[Oracle]

It presupposes that we know what the disease is. What afflicts Turkey is not what afflicts Colombia. What 'afflicts' Sierra Leonese women is not what 'afflicts' Iranian men.

The topic of this thread though is asylum seekers and their treatment, not the cause of their original woes. By all means open a thread on what causes people to flee their homelands in fear - I wonder if Get Real will still say its a problem of their own making ?


I agree good medicine - or rather good public health policy - would seek to avoid or prevent the causes of the 'disease' in the first place. But it is equally true that good medicine does not refuse to act on a patient simply because the causes are unknown, not fully understood or intractable. We do not and should not expect doctors to refuse treatment for our broken leg by saying 'you brought that on yourself; had you not been playing football this wouldn't have happened, so I'm not treating you.'

I agree both need tackling. But abdicating at the first hurdle because of the diversity of abuses is not acceptable.

And I too would not advocate doctors refusing treatment e.g. to a lung-cancer sufferer on the basis that they brought it upon themselves through smoking.

@Bill

Blinkered bigotry again!

Most people seek asylum to somewhere with a degree of familiarity be it language (and we know English is universal) or an ex-colonial ruler ... who should not turn his back on problems he may have ignited in years gone by.

[Get Real!]

Get Real you really are making no sense at all now.

First, my examples were just that : examples. I could have mentioned cases from virtually every country in the world. There's no particular reason to select Turkey, Iran and Sierra Leone.

Second, US citizens have sought asylum elsewhere. In Canada, for example.

Third, your paragraph beginning " Anyway, if a country ....." is the standard way of rejecting (a) the notion of human rights and (b) rejecting the universality of those rights. So what you have just done is set yourself against the very basis of the modern human rights order. Your prerogative of course, but then you cannot claim human rights in relation to the Cyprus question whilst rejecting them in all other respects.

Let's see whether you really stand by what you've just said. Let's replace the word country in your paragraph for the word 'Turkey' and let's replace the particular abuses with ones carried out in Cyprus. Here goes :

If Turkey rules through invasion because that’s the way it has always been in accordance with their politics/character, then that’s tough. If Turkey persecutes Greek Cypriots and others critical of the regime then that’s tough. If Turkey is prejudiced against Greeks Cypriots because that’s the way it has always been then that’s tough too......Oh, and this is called the Get Real policy.

Methinks, however, that Get Real is talking nonsense and he know that he's talking nonsense.

What you’ve done now is to introduce ANOTHER country INTERFERING in the former country and thus changed the whole debate. Stick to the ONE country that allegedly has a “bad” regime that triggers the asylum seekers…

Some of you underestimate the fundamental unique FLOW that each country has. It’s a preset of written and unwritten rules that have evolved over thousands of years encompassing every aspect of that society including their history, religion, culture, language, etc, that CANNOT be changed overnight and any fool who thinks they can ends up being the “persecuted”.

Now, you can argue until the cows come home about which “FLOW” is superior to the rest and why but that’s another story.

[CopperLine]

Bill,
The reasons for asylum are not the same as those for immigration. The laws on immigration are not the same as those for asylum. The stated policy on immigration is not the same as for asylum. It makes no more sense to bundle these two things together than to bundle immigration and tourism together. They are different phenomena governed by different causes regulated by different laws.

Immigration policy (policy about migrants) is almost always driven by economic considerations and national law. Asylum policy (policy about who should be given refuge) is almost always driven by political and foreign policy considerations, and by international legal commitments.

There is no credible evidence in absolute or relative terms that UK asylum policy is 'soft'. There is, however, mountains of evidence of utterly irresponsible scaremongering by the yellow press.

[CopperLine]

So let's get this straight Get Real. You criticise me for using some country examples and I offer other examples. I then oblige you by offering an example of another real country in place of your general "a country' which you then criticise me for introducing.

The point is with human rights is that they're universal. And you cannot pick and choose who has these rights (and obligations) just to suit your own case. You advocated what is an undisguised 'might is right' picture of the world. You rejected a rights based picture of the world. OK, that's up to you : tie your fascist flag to that brutalist mast. But then you lose all credibility should you in future appeal to universal human rights to support your case.