Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

[quote="CopperLine"][b]Denizaksulu,[/b]
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.[/quote]


Thanks for the response.

They were granted asylum. Then went back to their country from which they sought asylum. They told me that they 'received' asylum on the grounds that their lives were in danger.

[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.

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.[/quote]


Get Real,
Let me spell it out.

Some section of the population of Cyprus subjected to a cruel and tyrannical regime wish to protest. They're beaten and imprisoned without trial, without access to lawyers or families (because that's what's been done for centuries). Five months later they're released without charge and warned not to protest again. You are one of these abused and released. You stick to your principles and insist on freedom. Subsequently you are warned that you'll disappear in the middle of the night. You take this threat seriously - they're going to kill you - and leave the country and seek asylum.

Another member of your family not involved at all in politics, also receives a threat that unless you desist from agitating against the regime, they too will disappear. Your relative (who has not broken any law, but who in your words has brought this on themselves) lives in permanent fear. They too take the threat seriously - they're going to be killed for something that they have not done - and seek asylum in a third country.

I think that (i) you have a right of asylum and (ii) that I, as a third country, have an obligation to give you refuge. (Yes, there are criteria and there is an evaluation of whether you are in fear of a genuine and serious threat: you do not just walk in and 'put your feet under the table').

Your earlier response was 'tough, that's the way they do things in Cyprus; don't rock the boat and you won't be in trouble; if you are in trouble you must have rocked the boat, so tough. Live with it.' That kind of response is simply to give licence to any cuthroat and barbarian. You've just thrown away every claim to rights.

[CopperLine]

Denizaksulu,
Without knowing details of the case/s a number of perfectly reasonable possibilities arise to explain this. For example, I've dealt with cases of Kenyans who have been granted asylum because they fled in fear of their lives - having neighbours, colleagues and family killed and having death threats made against them - under the Moi regime. They were given asylum in the UK (granted 'indefinite leave to remain'). Following the elections in 2002, and following Foreign Office advice, they visited Kenya to see if indeed it was safe to return. Some thought it was, and stayed in Kenya. Others still genuinely feared persecution, and did not return then.

I've come across cases from Colombia where people who received death threats have been granted asylum (in Canada, in Spain, in UK) but who, despite the continuing threat of disappearance or death, have returned (temporarily) because that is where their loved ones are. They miss their home; they do not want to be in asylum. Quite often people in such positions will say to their host country neighbours 'that I went on holiday back to my country' rather than go into the details of their tortured and traumatised lives. (We in Cyprus should not be surprised by this : we all know that there are hundreds of people who hide or refuse to tell of the events of their early life).

I don't know whether the people you know went on one of these kinds of holidays. If they did it is unlikely to have been a 'buckets and spades and strolling on the promenade' type of holiday.

[GAVCARoCOM]

i didnt get surprised with the vote result

[CopperLine]

Militiades and others I recommend that you read this to get a sense of perspective and proportion, as well as to get some reliable facts :

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/practice/basics/truth.htm

Or have a look at this : http://www.independentasylumcommission.org.uk/

Or the main AI site :

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10398

[Bill]

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.

Not blinkered bigotry just common sense and a understanding of human nature when faced with adversity economic or otherwise.

As I said why risk travelling all the way across Europe to seek safety when they could locate in anyone of the countries they passed through.

Personally if I need asylum I would be happy to be safe in the first country that would accept me ~ obviously I would prefer to be in the UK as the benefits are greater and there would be more chance of success .

As a economic refugee masquerading as a asylum seeker of course the UK is the place to go ~ remember the camps in Calais they were waiting for weeks and months for the chance of travelling to the UK by train or truck even though they could have been processed as requiring asylum in France or for that matter all the other countries they had travelled through .

It's people like you and copperline who are making the situation worse in the UK ~ once you have chased these illegal immigrants say around a railway sidings or truck depot and hear the words " want asylum" they often don't know anymore English just "want asylum " then perhaps you will understand .

I have no problem with genuine asylum seekers but have no time for economic refugees even though I can understand why they are doing it and quite honestly would probably do the same in their circumstances ~ but that doesn't make it right.

No doubt you went to the UK for a better life just as Miltiades did all those years ago and enjoyed a good education and life .

In a previous post you commented about the mass exodus of Brits from the UK ( of which you are one ) can you blame them ~ really it's a good thing they are leaving because the UK was starting to sink under the weight

Bill

[Bill]

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.

.

One question I would love to ask the supposed asylum seeker is " why didn't you register in the half dozen or so countries you have passed through whilst travelling to the UK as you had reached a place of safety and had no real need to travel further "

Bill

[CopperLine]

Bill,
There maybe dozens of perfectly good and legitimate reasons to seek asylum in the UK. For example, one could simply be language. Another could be that the asylum seeker has connections to the UK. Another could be that they do not feel safe in countries they pass through. Another could simply be that they came by plane ! Another could be that the UK government itself has projected the UK as a free and democratic. Another could be that UK officials have indicated that they're likely to be granted asylum.

Instead of assuming the response of asylum seekers to your question, why don't you look at the research on asylum seeking ? Investigate these questions and you'll get answers. Have a look at the reports and links that I've posted. Don't put up with yellow press lies and scaremongering.


And your comments about Sangatte (near Pas de Calais) reflect exactly the confusion and false conflation of asylum seekers and others. A large number of Sangatte internees were not asylum seekers, they were indeed 'economic migrants'. A small but important proportion were asylum seekers trying to get asylum in the UK, some having crossed on tortuous routes from the Middle East on next to nothing (to be met by people who say that asylum seekers have it easy and cushy and the UK is a soft option).

And the bottom line is that the UK does not have a high proportion of asylum seekers. The cost of affording traumatised and vulnerable people a safe haven is a fraction of the value of government bribery in arms deals, in corporate tax frauds, or letting off the super-rich non-domiciled from their tax dues.

[Oracle]

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.

It is a manifest Symptom of Miltiadinitis that the more a poster makes sense, the greater the number of delusional inventions that flow forth from his fevered imagination.

[Bill]

And the bottom line is that the UK does not have a high proportion of asylum seekers. .

I would agree with your statement if you would rephrase that to the UK doesn't have a high proportion of genuine asylum seekers but has thousands of immigrants claiming asylum .

There is a difference ~ sadly it's costing the UK millions to go through the various procedures ~ assessments and appeals .

I still maintain the UK is a soft touch and that's why so many arrive claiming asylum there even after traveling through many countries that could have given them refuge but of course wouldn't give the same benefits as the UK .

The UK is really the immigrants / asylum seekers utopia and I can understand why they travel so far across Europe to take advantage of everything the UK can offer.

You don't see many asylum seekers / economic refugees relocate in China or Russia do you

Bill