Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

[Michael5482]

Because its inherent in the definition of racism?

"Racism is discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity"

Once they have asylum that is it. Its up to them whether they return. Why should you (or some other arbitrary group) be the judge?

Asylum in the UK is not permanent, it is granted for 3 or 5 years (cant remember which one) after that they have to apply again. If any asylum seekers country is liberated I see no reason why they require further asylum, it will hopefully empower them to build the land they fled from.

Asylum can also be revoked if it is no longer needed.

Nothing racist about it, the race card is very boring now.

Did not know that...

Looks like min period is 5 years but can be granted indefinite right to remain.

Which can also be revoked along with British Citizenship (see Shamima Begum) and this is the problem the Tory's have implemented none of it hence we have what can only be called as an invasion, Starmer called it an experiment but doesn't seem to want to get a grip of it either [possibly because the rules go against his personal beliefs being a leftist.

The rules are in place and people cannot be called racist when Government fail to implement the rules or law, some of it is undermined by the ECHR which is why we must leave it. No foreign court should have jurisdiction over British law.

If people were calling for the removal of people based on skin colour or religion then yes there racist people who are calling for the implementation of the rules and laws already in place are not racist as they have been labelled but the truth is unravelling now. British people are struggling it is not racist to want to put British people 1st either.

The race card is dead and buried and has no credibility anymore.

[firlandsfarm]

I fail to see why returning people to their home country especially when the reason why they claimed asylum has been removed should be racist. It seems to be a typical example of always having to comply with the sensitivities of others rather than make a logical truthful comment!

You are wasting your time arguing that one.
It might irritate them , but Greenmark and Sionascaig will bat that one away forever and call you racist.
They are never going to go back voluntarily, not after risking there lives crossing the English channel in a dinghy.
They are here to stay .
Accept that.
What we are talking about is controlling current 'illegal' immigration which isn't being racist. It's what the majority of people in England want.

I think you missed something in one of my earlier posts today ...

FlyingPig.jpg

[sionascaig]

I fail to see why returning people to their home country especially when the reason why they claimed asylum has been removed should be racist. It seems to be a typical example of always having to comply with the sensitivities of others rather than make a logical truthful comment!

You are wasting your time arguing that one.
It might irritate them , but Greenmark and Sionascaig will bat that one away forever and call you racist.
They are never going to go back voluntarily, not after risking there lives crossing the English channel in a dinghy.
They are here to stay .
Accept that.
What we are talking about is controlling current 'illegal' immigration which isn't being racist. It's what the majority of people in England want.

I think you missed something in one of my earlier posts today ...

FlyingPig.jpg

Luv the new England flag )

[firlandsfarm]

I fail to see why returning people to their home country especially when the reason why they claimed asylum has been removed should be racist.

Because its inherent in the definition of racism?

"Racism is discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity"

Once they have asylum that is it. Its up to them whether they return. Why should you (or some other arbitrary group) be the judge?

I'm not being a judge. Asylum should be a temporary thing granted and maintained while there is a need but when that need vanishes the asylum should be withdrawn. Suppose a friend of yours tells you they are homeless and could they stay at your home. You agree but would you not expect them to leave when they are able to and if not would you not ask/tell them to leave or would you be happy for them to stay ad-infinitum?

[sionascaig]

I fail to see why returning people to their home country especially when the reason why they claimed asylum has been removed should be racist.

Because its inherent in the definition of racism?

"Racism is discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity"

Once they have asylum that is it. Its up to them whether they return. Why should you (or some other arbitrary group) be the judge?

I'm not being a judge. Asylum should be a temporary thing granted and maintained while there is a need but when that need vanishes the asylum should be withdrawn. Suppose a friend of yours tells you they are homeless and could they stay at your home. You agree but would you not expect them to leave when they are able to and if not would you not ask/tell them to leave or would you be happy for them to stay ad-infinitum?

I see your points...

My point is don't blame the immigrants (and I don't think you do), blame the government(s).

Maybe that friend is now looking after me as I'm now bedbound and unable to take care of myself.

(or in a more general context working for the NHS, looking after the elderly)

==> It would depend on the circumstances...

And in the above case I would prefer to make room for them and maybe chuck out one of those rioters?

I would certainly vote for the biggest benefit claimants in the UK to leave (aka the Royal family - also immigrants by the way)...

[ForFolksSake]

I fail to see why returning people to their home country especially when the reason why they claimed asylum has been removed should be racist. It seems to be a typical example of always having to comply with the sensitivities of others rather than make a logical truthful comment!

You are wasting your time arguing that one.
It might irritate them , but Greenmark and Sionascaig will bat that one away forever and call you racist.
They are never going to go back voluntarily, not after risking there lives crossing the English channel in a dinghy.
They are here to stay .
Accept that.
What we are talking about is controlling current 'illegal' immigration which isn't being racist. It's what the majority of people in England want.

I think you missed something in one of my earlier posts today ...

FlyingPig.jpg

Gotcha

[greenmark]

I fail to see why returning people to their home country especially when the reason why they claimed asylum has been removed should be racist.

Because its inherent in the definition of racism?

"Racism is discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity"

Once they have asylum that is it. Its up to them whether they return. Why should you (or some other arbitrary group) be the judge?

I'm not being a judge. Asylum should be a temporary thing granted and maintained while there is a need but when that need vanishes the asylum should be withdrawn. Suppose a friend of yours tells you they are homeless and could they stay at your home. You agree but would you not expect them to leave when they are able to and if not would you not ask/tell them to leave or would you be happy for them to stay ad-infinitum?

That analogy doesn't work.
You don't leave your county if it's remotely a good place to be.
Syrians left because of 13 years of war. A wobbly regime change means next to nothing. If I was the boss I would vet them closely. If they pass I would support them more than a UK resident. Why? They need language. Without language you are a zombie. No-one will interact, house or employ you.

[ForFolksSake]

Because its inherent in the definition of racism?

"Racism is discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity"

Once they have asylum that is it. Its up to them whether they return. Why should you (or some other arbitrary group) be the judge?

I'm not being a judge. Asylum should be a temporary thing granted and maintained while there is a need but when that need vanishes the asylum should be withdrawn. Suppose a friend of yours tells you they are homeless and could they stay at your home. You agree but would you not expect them to leave when they are able to and if not would you not ask/tell them to leave or would you be happy for them to stay ad-infinitum?

That analogy doesn't work.
You don't leave your county if it's remotely a good place to be.
Syrians left because of 13 years of war. A wobbly regime change means next to nothing. If I was the boss I would vet them closely. If they pass I would support them more than a UK resident. Why? They need language. Without language you are a zombie. No-one will interact, house or employ you.

I would support them more than a UK resident

How far does your English family tree go back, just out of interest

[firlandsfarm]

I see your points...

My point is don't blame the immigrants (and I don't think you do), blame the government(s).

Maybe that friend is now looking after me as I'm now bedbound and unable to take care of myself.

(or in a more general context working for the NHS, looking after the elderly)

==> It would depend on the circumstances...

And in the above case I would prefer to make room for them and maybe chuck out one of those rioters?

I would certainly vote for the biggest benefit claimants in the UK to leave (aka the Royal family - also immigrants by the way)...

Correct I don't blame the immigrants, they are just doing what's best for them ... that's a hu8man nature. There are rules to control the situation but they are not being applied so yes I blame the Governments.

Yes, removal of asylum privileges does not have to be compulsory. No reason why they can't be invited to stay if they fall within the list of preferred skills.

My problem with the rioters was how they were treated. It was racism against the white rioters whereas the non-white rioters who laid siege on the Birmingham pub never appeared in court. All rioters who break the law should be treated the same regardless of creed or colour but it doesn't happen. If someone is non-white Asian the police are frightened to touch them.

And your (cheap) comment against the Royal Family is below what I would expect. Why do people always talk of what they cost the country without comparing with what they earn for the UK. They encourage tourism and open many doors for industry. There are calls for republic. Can you imaging KS replacing the Royal Family in representing the UK?!

[ForFolksSake]

del

[firlandsfarm]

That analogy doesn't work.
You don't leave your county if it's remotely a good place to be.
Syrians left because of 13 years of war. A wobbly regime change means next to nothing. If I was the boss I would vet them closely. If they pass I would support them more than a UK resident. Why? They need language. Without language you are a zombie. No-one will interact, house or employ you.

The analogy works perfectly ... your home is the country and your friend is the immigrant! And I don't think anyone has said we should just ship them back without regard for the state of the new Government. I said if the reason for granting their asylum is no more. So if the reason was because it was dangerous then they wouldn't be expected to return until it was safe. Simples!

[greenmark]

That analogy doesn't work.
You don't leave your county if it's remotely a good place to be.
Syrians left because of 13 years of war. A wobbly regime change means next to nothing. If I was the boss I would vet them closely. If they pass I would support them more than a UK resident. Why? They need language. Without language you are a zombie. No-one will interact, house or employ you.

The analogy works perfectly ... your home is the country and your friend is the immigrant! And I don't think anyone has said we should just ship them back without regard for the state of the new Government. I said if the reason for granting their asylum is no more. So if the reason was because it was dangerous then they wouldn't be expected to return until it was safe. Simples!

What if they've made a new life here?

[sionascaig]

And your (cheap) comment against the Royal Family is below what I would expect. Why do people always talk of what they cost the country without comparing with what they earn for the UK. They encourage tourism and open many doors for industry. There are calls for republic. Can you imaging KS replacing the Royal Family in representing the UK?!

They can do that without:

- being head of state
- changing legislation to benefit themselves
- not paying taxes like everyone else on private assets
- accepting extremely large cash donations (as head of state) as personal gifts
- providing shelter for those accused of criminal sexual activities

The list goes on & on & on...

And our elected representatives are not even allowed to talk about them in parliament even after swearing an oath to them & "all their descendants"...

Sure, have a Royal family... No need for for all the rest though...

It would appear you are happy to excuse excuse excuse them for anything...

edit - at least with an elected head of state we can remove them..

(and here I was thinking we had reached a happy place)

[Archery1969]

Disgraceful……

https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayne ... g-13269419

Good job she not here otherwise I would let her meet my 600lbs brown friend.

[Archery1969]

People, I fully appreciate most don’t like the Royal Family.

I and many others took an oath, Queen first, Country second.

Me and others had the privilege of meeting her and having something pinned to our uniforms. On that day in question, she put her hand on my shoulder in the gardens and asked if I could escort her upstairs to her room, which I gladly did. 5 mins later her personal protective detail turned up with doctor. Of course, she was fine.

I also had the privilege to serve with Scots Guards, Irish Guards, Welsh Guards, Para’s, Royal Marines and the Gurkhas during Iraq 1, 2 and Afghanistan.

Could be wrong but I don’t ever member any of them talking down about the Queen.

I can’t speak for those above but I personally would have rather protected the Queen than my country and probably most of you on this forum.

Peace.