should asylum seekers be sent home?

Answer 1

not the geniune ones! just the ones who are slowley sucking the life out of our country

Answer 2

This is such a big question, and I really don't know what the right answer is, or even if there is a right answer. If someone is genuinely escaping from persecution, hunger or war, can we in all conscience send them back to that? If you were in that position, wouldn't you pray that a kindly country would take you in, along with your family? On the other hand, our country is crowded, with some resources stretched almost to breaking point. It might be argued that we simply cannot afford to help any more asylum seekers. Then there are the dubious cases, where there doesn't seem to be a good reason for the person to flee their country. It seems to me that one solution is to do all we can to ensure that there is no need for people to seek asylum elsewhere, by improving conditions in their own countries.

Answer 3

Wow, bit of a controversial question there. If they don't follow local laws then sending the offenders home is what should be done.
On the other side is the fact that people are fleeing from a country where soldiers from other countries are going to help, however, soldiers are trained and asylum seekers are generally civilians who are not trained for combat.
Asylum seekers get a bad name because they are not allowed to work in a country as they have a refugee status and this gives the "leech" impression that so many of us have. Would they work if they had the opportunity? Quite possibly, yes.
Most countries have had strife in their history at some point or other and have fled, so would you as a civilian like to be left in a war torn country where you're hated?

Answer 4

Absolutely, positively definitely yes! Even if we can't send them "home" then asylum seekers can be sent back to the country they came from without infringing their "human rights".
Human rights legislation says we cannot send them back to the country they came from if this would endanger them. As most of them come through the channel tunnel this means they came "from" France . As they would be in no danger in France, that is where we should send them "back" to! If we did this France might take action to stop them getting into France in the first place.
Some don't come via France they choose to come by aeroplane. I'm talking of the aircraft highjackers who were allowed to stay even though John Reid tells us asylum seekers who commit crimes are deported - obviously highjacking a plane isn't a crime nowadays!
While on the subject of crime, roughly 25% of our prison population are due for deportation on completion of their sentence - they should not be in prison they should have been deported as soon as they were found guilty.
Today the Government (not the one in Brussels, the one we elected) announced they have ordered a prison ship to hold asylum seekers until they are deported! Here's an idea Tony - use the ship to take them back to France and hey presto you will have room in our jails for the thugs, burglers, rapists and peadophiles who should be in there.
As an example of what a soft touch we are, I cite the case of the Pakistani woman who claimed she could not go back to Pakistan as she would be laughed at because she is tall - she has been given a rent free council flat, pays no council tax and recieves £40 per week in benefits (and more I bet). She also has diabetes which of course the good old NHS is paying to treat - yes absolutely, positively, definitely asylum seekers should be sent home!

Answer 5

True asylum seekers are those who have been persecuted in their home country and risk death or torture if they are returned. These people have suffered enough and do not deserve to be sent home. Illegal economic migrants (often mistakenly referred to as asylum seekers) should be returned home, as their own countries need them to help build/rebuild economic and political stability.

Answer 6

I agree with the fact that the EU says it should be the nearest friendly country. If they are fleeing from danger or oppression, surely anywhere that they'd be safe would do.

But they continue to come to our door. And that is simply because Britain offers them a super-tollerant get-away, with lax deportation for failed asylum applications.

Why can these people not got to the nearest 'safe-country', then apply to come here through the normal immigration channels?

I think that people who bypass non-hostile countries to come here should be deported immediately without allowing an application. This would not only protect us from bogus asylum claims, but would also allow immigration cases to be heard more quickly.

Answer 7

Many asylum seekers come from countries with problems that arose as a result of the british Empire collapsing. Britain essentially help create the problems from which many are fleeing. Thus britain has a responsibility to deal with the aftermath.

Answer 8

that's a classic occasion of the 'carrot and stick' attitude. leaf interior the direction of the postings in this talk board, and you may agree that asylum is a vast concern for many, if no longer a particular team in our society. all of us prefer something accomplished approximately asylum. the government is taking a great first step in addressing this by way of handling failed asylum concerns by way of deportation and hand-outs. Small cost to pay via fact the alternative is composed of a greater advantageous economic cost for the tax-payer. We might desire to be supportive of the government in this.

Answer 9

If we are going to repatriate all asylum seekers back to their countries then perhaps we should ask all those countries where Brits have settled to send them back home too. If you knew the statistics of Brits settling abroad, you wouldn't be able to justify wanting to send immigrants away from the UK. And don't excuse the Brits abroad by saying they don't scrounge off the other nations. Centuries of imperialism has meant that the Brits have creamed the wealth and resources of many a country round the world!!!

Answer 10

NOsomewhat tricky question but i feel that IF they wish to stay they should accept our rules, we should NOT have to change our ways. WE are the true english. they are guests in our country. they should find work within a set period, say, 6 months, in order to keep themselves. night school to learn english should be compulsory, any breaking of our laws should carry the penalty of deporting back to their own country. we should NOT give them oversize houses and pay their rent, tax, and all other bills. we have unused office blocks, turn them into flats or bedsits. we as a nation are too damn soft, which is why we have so many coming here. NO i AM NOT RACIALLY PREJUDIST.

Answer 11

My fiancee has been sent back to his country and we have a 4 month old son and hes never seen him yet. I think the ones that are willing to work pay taxes and are not criminals should be allowed to stay. All the money grabbing bad ones send um back the bad ones give the good ones a bad name.