Cyprus-Forum.com

[miltiades]

Miltiades,

It appears your a Guardian reader

(I think you mean "you're" or "you are") Yes I read the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Morning Star, The Independent and much more .... and your point is what ?

The poll question was not about individual asylum seekers or their circumstances. It was about the principle of asylum. In that regard the poll question was a proper question.

Furthermore, and in any case, there is no need to pre-fix the phrase 'genuine' to asylum seeker' since neither you (nor I) are in a position to assess individual cases and therefore you have no idea whether they are "genuine" or not (By genuine I assume that you mean 'have merit'). The truth is, Militiades, you have simply no idea whether or not asylum seekers have a case or not. Your opinion - for it is no more than that - is likely based on hearsay and yellow press scare stories.

An 'asylum seeker' is one who seeks asylum from some determinate form of persecution. The UK, like other states, has international legal obligations to give asylum to those who seek asylum (subject of course to certain tests and proofs). Being given asylum status in the UK is extremely difficult and convoluted process and it is quite wrong of you to imply that asylum seeking is an easy or soft option. It is not.

The question of so-called 'economic migrants' is completely different from asylum seekers, but those who wish to brutalise both groups of people find it convenient to confuse and conflate the two, just as you have done.

Economic migration is a matter of government policy, of any and all governments. The UK govt. has in recent years encouraged and recruited nurses and other health workers from the Caribbean, South Africa, Philippinnes, Spain etc. These people and other like them come to the UK because they have been recruited to do so. If you are angry at this, then take your rage out against government not against the immigrants themselves.

You've got the question of 'entry state' quite wrong. The principal reason that certain asylum seekers make for the UK is because of historic ties. You tend to get people from, say, Sierra Leone or Pakistan or Kenya because of British imperial/colonial links. Asylum seekers from Cote d'Ivoire or Senegal tend not to seek asylum in the UK, but in France : they're francophone. Whether asylum seekers or economic migrants there is a tendency to follow familiar historical patterns, just as this is the same reason that Cypriots tended to go to the UK not Spain or Denmark.

""""""Stop the deportations. Support asylum seekers """
That is what the poll is all about , NOT AS YOU NOW SAY """ about the principle of asylum. """
To suggest that any civilized human being is opposed to the principle of asylum is not not only in poor taste but rather insulting too.
You appear to be convinced that there are are no bogus asylum seekers , in the UK , AND TO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN IMMIGRANTS AND ASYLUM SEEKERS.The connection is irrefutable , in the 60s when immigration to the UK was virtually unrestricted the only asylum seekers were very few isolated cases from the Eastern block.
In the UK there are but a few genuine asylum cases , the vast majority are illegal immigrants .

[Get Real!]

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.

Copperline, to cut a long story short…

The few genuine asylum seekers are in fact the fools because rebelliousness WITHIN the regime you are rebelling is suicide. Smart people LEAVE the regime peacefully and conduct their propaganda (rebelliousness) from a safe haven.

[Agios Ionas]

The year is 2006...

UK (population 59 million) - 39315 asylum seekers granted asylum
France (population 60 million) - 39315 asylum seekers granted asylum
Sweden (population 9 million) - 24322 asylum seekers granted asylum

...and the numbers are rising.

The year is still 2006...

Germany (population 82.6 million) - 21029 asylum seekers granted asylum

...and that's 27% less than in 2005. The numbers for Sweden in 2006 are 39% higher than in 2005.

I have no idea what the numbers are for 2007 in the UK, France and Germany. But Sweden granted asylum for 36207 people last year.

Tiny little Sweden with about 9 million people of which the estimated labour force is 4.8 million. About 8% of those 4.8 million are unemployed. About 25% of the those aged 15-24 are unemployed. How is Sweden going to cope with all these new people?

The Södertälje Municipality has about 83000 inhabitants. They've accepted approximately 1200 asylum seekers from Iraq every year since the invasion in 2003. They're planning to take on 2000 Iraqis this year. Altogether they have given shelter to more Iraqis than the whole of the USA. The big nation USA who (along with the UK) ultimately is responsible for the endless wave of asylum seekers from Iraq.

Certainly the USA could and should do better. But as the UK undoubtedly is part of the 'Iraq problem' I only think it's fair that they take their share of asylum seekers from the region.

Edit:

We must also assume that there is an unknown number of illegal immigrants on top of the official numbers. I think the EU has to work together in order to sort things out. Things are only getting worse if eg Greece lets people through to Germany who lets them through to Denmark who lets them through to the UK or Sweden where they finally are allowed to stay. If we continue to shove the hot potato to another country the hot potato will end up biting us in the arse one day. For an EU country immigration shouldn't be a national issue. Because it simply isn't. It has to be taken care of on an EU level. Because once the asylum seeker become a citizen in an EU country they can choose to move freely within the union and decide to settle in the country they really wanted to stay in... which may include any country that just passed them on like a hot potato to stay out of 'trouble'.

I definitely think we must take responsibility and offer people in distress a place to live. But the level of responsibility taken by each country has to be in balance with their population as well as any involvement in the cause of crisis leading to a wave of asylum seekers.

Also, what Oracle said was spot on. Asylum seekers are the symptom of the disease. And if we manage to cure the disease within a reasonable amount of time we must also have a good plan to repatriate people so they can take part in the rebuilding of their home countries and make themselves good lives where they most certainly feel they belong. And while treating the symptoms we must also prevent the disease in the first place.

[Paphitis]

Australia has the best Asylum and Illegal Immigration policies in the whole world. The previous Australian government has done a great job in sealing our borders.

Due to draconian laws, illegal immigration problem is now virtually elliminated and we accept and grant only legitimate and legal applications for asylum and not those from illegal immigrants. Lately we have accepted thousands of Iraqi refugees and we do not have a problem with this as their cases are genuine and they applied through the proper channels.

Other country's that pussy foot around are going to have serious problems in the future if they do not adequately address the issue. And I am referring to UK and Cyprus in particular.

[DT.]

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.

Examples of countries abusing the human rights of their own citizens on one hand and then you proceed to catch someone out by presenting an example of a country abusing the human rights of the citizens of a different country???

What business is it of Turkey's to be prejudiced against GC's?

[Get Real!]

On topic:

I see no reason why a law abiding citizen would get persecuted so I’m afraid I cannot support asylum seekers as they are most likely running away from a problem they have brought upon themselves.

I cannot agree with that GR :

[i]Every person has the right to live free from persecution, or the fear of persecution, based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Though every government is obligated to provide this right, many fail. Every year millions of people face persecution for traits they cannot control or exercising their religious or political beliefs. When governments fail to protect these rights, people have the right to move to a country that will protect them. This is the right to asylum[/i].

Do you not think that we owe it to these people as fellow human beings to protect their basic human rights? Also, what about the Jewish holocaust? Those that fled rather than go to the death camps, what if they were turned away from nazi free countries? Did they bring death and madness down on themselves?
Tess

Tess, you have chosen to reside in an illegal Turkish military base inaccessible to ANY human rights bodies…

You're a nice lady Tess so I don't really want to "maul" you so please don't respond to this.

[denizaksulu]

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 !!

Right there Miltiades. I know a few Asylum seekers who return home for their holidays. Its all a joke. Need of stricter scrutiny.

[CopperLine]

Militiades,

'Stop the deportations. Support asylum seekers' is the title I gave to this thread. It is my view. It is not the poll question. For the poll question ... errrrr.... do the straightforward thing which is just read the poll question. Yes or no to the principle. Really quite simple.

Where did I "suggest that any civilized human being is opposed to the principle of asylum is not not only in poor taste but rather insulting too" ? I didn't. You invented that.

Where did I say that I "appear to be convinced that there are are no bogus asylum seekers" ? I didn't. You invented that.

What evidence do you have that "In the UK there are but a few genuine asylum cases , the vast majority are illegal immigrants." You don't. You just invented that.


"Plus they hate our guts." Who do ? How do you know ? You don't know. You just made that up.

You're making things up. Don't expect me to take you seriously.

[CopperLine]

DT,
I thought that I'd give a range of examples. If you want, take the Turkey-Cyprus example away (though I'd have thought that on this forum of all forums people would leap on it as an example they'd love to use; but anyway) and I'll replace it with hundreds and thousands of others. The point remains.

More broadly we've seriously got to be worried when we treat some of the most vulnerable and weakest in society in such a cavalier, dismissive indeed brutal a manner. I'm no Christian but doesn't the injunction 'to do unto others as you would have done to yourself' or 'there by the grace of god go I' have any persuasiveness amongst those who oppose the asylum principle ?

[CopperLine]

Denizaksulu,
Let's suppose that there are asylum seekers who go home for holidays (!!!! and huge supposition !!!!) then this does not mean that the principle of offering asylum should be broken. It says, if anything at all, that as you say, scrutiny needs to be improved.

But, without revealing names or identities, where were these asylum seekers you know from ? Were they asylum seekers or had they already been granted asylum ? If the latter how long had they been in the UK ?

The trouble with these asylum and immigration questions - like so many other areas of politics - is that they're riddled with hearsay, rumour, urban legend and downright falsehoods. Smoke and mirrors.