HOMEPAGE | NEWS | WORLD SERVICE | SPORT | MY BBC
| HOMEPAGE | NEWS | WORLD SERVICE | SPORT | MY BBC
|
help |
  |
|
||||
 |
|
You are in: Vote2001: Talking Point | ||
    |
|
Wednesday, 6 June, 2001, 13:56 GMT 14:56 UK
Should we lock up asylum seekers?
The Conservatives have put forward plans to hold all new asylum seekers in secure reception centres until their cases can be dealt with.
They say that building new centres - which might eventually hold 6,000 people - will enable their cases to be dealt with much more quickly and lead to a fall in numbers seeking asylum. The other major parties are opposed to the scheme and the European director of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has said that it would create more problems than it solved Is locking up asylum seekers the way to treat people who are looking for a new start in life, or will it be a more efficient way of coping with the influx? What do you think?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
Your reaction
Jane Slinger, Bromsgrove
Thousands of Eastern European "displaced persons" (my father included) came to the UK in 1946 and 1947 seeking asylum. They lived in makeshift army camps and worked on farms for 2 years before being released into the community to find jobs and raise families. Genuine refugees will not object to refugee camps - any camp in the UK has to be better than death in the home country. Of course, economic migrants would resent being detained and having their bogus claims checked out.
We lost everything. It's very very painful to start again. Please at least allow us to live on this planet.
Keith G. Marsden, Bristol
We should detain asylum seekers, but not in this country. Why not send aid to countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, Kenya etc and build detention centres there? Then asylum seekers' claims will be processed near to their place of origin and there won't be the difficulty in removing them. Asylum seekers will know they won't get a foothold in this country but be sent back to their region of the world, reducing the incentive to come here. It will also provide money to these poorer countries and be far cheaper for the UK. This massive influx must be stopped.
Andrew has touched on a good idea. Instead of coming to Britain to apply for asylum, they should have to apply at the British consulate in their country. That would eliminate most of the problems associated with economic migrants/bogus claims and reception camps. If someone tries to enter Britain without the correct documents granting asylum they are packed off back home.
If we are taking asylum seekers because of human rights abuses, then our sports teams should not be competing against them. It is time we stopped sporting contacts with Turkey, Sri Lanka, and all the others.
When we see the balkanisation and segregation that is taking place within our country, it would seem that we have gone beyond the ability to absorb further immigrants or asylum seekers.
It is hard to believe that we are an under populated country that needs immigration. If we are, shouldn't the Treasury give us incentives to have bigger families. I think people would rather the government put forward a strategy to manage a lowering of our population size.
I agree with the Conservative policy on asylum.
Mohammed Murad, Ankhoi, Afghanistan
As a Conservative, I find this policy distasteful, not because I think it is racist (I don't) but because it is lazy, populist politics of the lowest order. The policy of detaining asylum seekers may not be racist but it will appeal to racists and that is the kind of support the Conservatives can do without.
No matter what politicians of all parties say about the need to reduce the influx of illegal immigrants, we should understand that none of them have any intention of doing anything meaningful about it. The fact that so many migrants can disappear into our society while an under-resourced Immigration service battles to cope with the number of applications and appeals makes a mockery of the claim that something is being done. Immigrants provide a source of cheap labour, and all parties are very keen on ensuring that this pool is available mainly, I suspect, to reduce labour costs in what they regard as uncompetitive British industries.
They shouldn't even be let in the country, let alone locked up in it.
Mark, Glasgow, Scotland
I don't like the undertone of racism that the Tories cannot help projecting, but we are a tiny country and how many people can we afford to let in? If we build any more housing estates, there is hardly going to be any countryside left. If there are available places, and there is space, then I would certainly welcome anybody that wanted to contribute to the UK. Of course asylum seekers should be questioned and be put in centres to be processed. Why do people have to put the word prison into it? They are not prisons - that is absurd.
Which places of detention for asylum seekers have you visited L.Bentley? When you say so authoritatively that they are not prisons I assume you are speaking with some authority? Have you been to Campsfield house and seen the high wrought iron fences topped with coils of razor wire? Have you visited anyone inside, like I have, and seen the set-up in the visitors room? And do you know that great numbers of people seeking asylum are being detained in real prisons alongside people who have been convicted of crimes? Didn't think so.
Locking up asylum seekers is not likely to prevent more from coming here, nor is it sensible. People come here because they are desperate, not because they think they can live off the state. Asylum seekers represent a cross section of society and have as much to offer as anyone else. Why not give them a chance?
Melissa, Staines, UK
The idea they should be locked up is acceptable assuming they are looked after with respect. I've heard nothing that even implies this would not be the case. Any true asylum seeker would probably be in better conditions in these camps than at home and would accept the situation knowing they are to receive a fair hearing. What the Tories have suggested will help both as a deterrent for those without good reason and also help those that have to be accepted into our society, as society will know they have been properly assessed. This is the best solution I have heard, its time for the do-gooders who are destroying the fabric of our society to realise sometimes we have to be harder on people.
The UK is getting too soft - we let all and sundry in, then moan when they get free handouts, houses, and content to put in them. We should be looking after our own first. Too many Brits are going without housing, food etc. Perhaps we should become asylum seekers - we would be better off.
George, London, UK
I remember under Thatcher's economic disaster when I was a refugee from this country and had to scour Europe for work. Thank God I was treated fairly there or I would have gone under. I remember the dark Tory days when everyone was trying to get out of this country. Now they are all trying to get in. Strange.
People seem to forget or ignore the fact that the Convention relating to refugees also imposes obligations on asylum seekers, namely that they should apply for asylum in the first country they pass through that is a signatory to the convention and that they should co-operate fully with the authorities of the country in which they apply for asylum. Thousands of asylum seekers are arriving in the UK every year. As it is almost impossible to board an international flight without a passport, and certainly without a ticket, how can so many people arrive here without either?
Ed Bayley, USA (English)
It is fallacious (and offensive to people who died or lost relatives in concentration camps) to compare the Tories to Nazis. Yes, some asylum applicants are genuine, but the great majority are not. Every asylum applicant who is refused here (except those who have been accepted by safe third countries) has the right to appeal to adjudicators who are independent of the Home Office. Very few decisions are overturned by adjudicators, who, as people, err on the side of caution. Claims should be determined quickly, fully and fairly. Detention (maybe only of the head of household) should be used sparingly, but would be a disincentive for fraudulent applicants.
Stuart Walker, Bournemouth, UK
The UK has 60m people in an area a quarter of the size of France. Its population density is the same as old West Germany but not so well distributed. There are possibly 2bn people (40 times the UK population) who could legitimately call themselves asylum seekers today if they could get here. A big chunk of our land is up in Scotland, and we're densely populated around a line between London and Liverpool. Our hospitals can't cope with our existing patients, our roads are clogged and our schools can't cope with the current volume of kids. So how many can we take? Politics at the margin can't be allowed to become the politics of the whole.
The Tory party should be locked up for such a racist backward view. Don't they realise the people they are asking to vote for them have a little more brains than William Hague after he tried to claim he drank 14 pints of ale. Please someone, tell the Tories to grow up.
Rev. Luke R Taylor, Glasgow
The term illegal immigrant is redundant - there is no such thing. There is a difference between immigrants and asylum seekers. The people who moan on about how much asylum seekers take of their taxpayers money should do some research and find out how much they actually receive (incidentally, asylum seekers are not entitled to housing benefit), and the conditions they are expected to live in, without the added fear of persecution from people who think 'not in my back yard'. The majority of asylum seekers are not leaving their homes, their possessions, their families and their jobs for the fun of it. It is because they fear for their lives or their freedom in their own countries. In these days of globalisation (particularly as England has invaded, pillaged and abused half the world under 'imperialism'), we are responsible for ensuring the basic human rights of everyone are met.
I am disgusted by the Conservatives' nonsensical ramblings about Britain as a "soft touch". Very soft: what civilized country locks up innocent people, displaced because of circumstances beyond their control? And honestly, the very idea that we spend too much on asylum seekers is preposterous: only 1/2 of 1% of public spending is on Asylum Seekers; and these people are given humiliating vouchers, and only £10 of cash to spend a week. It is time that Hague and his party faced up to Britain's role in the world.
The more I hear him talk on the issue the more up for locking Hague away I get.
Kate, London, UK
I find rather perverse to claim that someone fleeing from persecution should be glad and grateful to be locked up, simply because their prison is in Britain. Perhaps one way of speeding up processing of applications is to assume that refugees from designated countries such as Iraq (especially Iraqi Kurds), Iran and Afghanistan are, by definition, genuine. As for why refugees travel through other safe countries to reach Britain the answer is, history. No doubt refugees from countries that where once under French colonial rule head for France etc. etc.
If the majority of the asylum seekers are bogus and economic migrants as is often pointed out then the answer to the immigration question is simple - vote Tory and they'll lead us into recession and then no-one will want to come into this country! But seriously, on the one hand we say that we can't have people coming into this country for economic reasons, while at the same time UK companies talk of skill shortages. What we're actually saying is that we'll gladly rape developing countries for their most valuable workers and you can keep the rest.
If you spend any time talking to asylum seekers, you'll
find that most have come to the UK not because they believe it to be a 'soft touch' but because it is English-speaking. Due to our history of immigration, there also tend to be groups of most nationalities already here, so people feel less cut adrift. Regarding people who are coming merely 'to seek a better life', they tend to come from states
exploited by the same system that gives people here their standard of living. We export an image of the west as a consumer paradise, and then we're surprised when others want to buy into it.
Sheena Macdonald, London
Claiming asylum is not a crime under any British or UK law. We shouldn't lock people up who have committed no crime. Otherwise where will it end?
I think the only disgrace in these proposals are the assertions by the other parties that Hague is racist! What a load of rubbish! The Tories have the bottle to come up with a practical solution to a major problem. Labour's solution? Meaningless schemes that merely provide illegal immigrants with taxpayers' money. Hague is delivering a much needed dose of common sense to a difficult problem, I only wish opinion polls showed this with a closing in the gap between Conservatives and Labour.
This is just another example of the ignorance ingrained in this country today - where have all the intelligent people gone? Our population in terms of immigration and emigration is actually static at the moment, asylum seekers already receive no benefits, are treated badly and given only enough to live 10 - 30% below the poverty line. Britain is hardly a 'soft touch' as everyone seems to believe! When are the Conservatives going to just come out and say that they wish to rename themselves the new Nazi party?
Tim Green, Liverpool, England
I would have thought anyone genuinely fleeing an
oppression would be glad to be locked up safely.
Anyone who considers this action to be the act of an
oppressive regime is surely by definition not entitled
to asylum.
If the proposed action stops the flood of economic
migrants, so much the better.
This policy may be in the news because of the
Tory policy, but don't forget that Blair's "New Tory"
administration is already constructing detention
centres for asylum seekers.
Excellent idea from the Tories.
The centres should be built in Calais and Ostend.
We are a soft touch.
A fear of being labelled a Nazi by
the politically correct bleeding
heart liberals that are the cause of
so much of this and other countries
demise, keep most people from
voicing a common sense view on
almost anything including this.
The majority of asylum seekers are
bogus! If we slashed befits by 90%
there would be no need for these
costly lock ups.
The focus by the Tories on this issue is a direct attempt to prey upon the xenophobic fears of the nation. The UK has been a home for migrants of many kinds for generations, they are often highly skilled people who (whatever their motivations) have added to the prosperity of our nation. Migration of all kinds will continue to occur while there is strife in the world and growing economic disparities between countries. People should realise their fears are being manipulated by politicians for their own end!
Polly, UK
The white population of this country consists almost entirely of the offspring of immigrants. The black population are mostly descended from those with origins in countries to which our empire-building forefathers were quite happy to emigrate to themselves.
I'm fascinated by the fact that on this issue the "free-market" right, which believes in the free movement of labour, and the far left more or less agree. It's those in the centre - at least as represented by New Labour and the Conservatives - who seem to get themselves most worked up about all this.
I hate to point out a disturbing similarity that has been overlooked in this issue, but anyone who has studied German history will know that the Nazi party first started locking up Jewish and other so-called "immigrants" because they claimed these people where clogging up Germany in much the same way the conservatives are claiming the so called "bogus" asylum seekers are clogging up Britain.
The Nazis also found though that housing 1000's of immigrants in "secure accommodation" was amazingly expensive.
To have economic migrants and asylum seekers to fill job shortages is very short sighted and completely of the debate. Firstly, if they are skilled it would benefit poor countries a lot more than ours for them to keep them. The second point is to ask why we have low birth rates and people who want to leave this country.
Aliyah, Australia
I have been reading some comments and I am becoming ashamed to even call myself English! Lock people up for trying to escape persecution? Let me take you on a journey where you are a refugee fleeing from persecution. You arrive in England to start a new life only to be locked up, numbered and accused of causing a mongrel race! How would you feel? Also, where is the £2bn going to come from? I certainly don't want to fund it!
Yes, they should be held while their cases are being reviewed. As long as they are being held in areas that are humanitarian, there should be no problem. As an American, I'll probably be seeking asylum in another country if oil-boy GW Bush keeps on doing what he does best: get richer.
I think it is disgusting that Hague is doing this - freedom is a basic human right not a privilege. His views are sounding more extreme right and xenophobic by the minute!
I never thought I'd see the day when fascist methods - the detaining of innocent people who have not committed any offence - were being advocated by the main opposition party in Britain. The saddest thing is that the policy will probably go down rather well amongst what appears to be an increasingly uninformed electorate. The irony is that, in view of the increasing elderly population in this country, many of the supporters of this highly expensive, absurd and totally impracticable suggestion will probably depend on immigrants to look after them in their old age.
Melissa, UK
I believe that assessment centres are the way forward. They already work in Australia, and I don't see European politicians complaining about Oz. They would provide medical and psychological support, food, warmth, shelter, police protection, and a calm atmosphere where a case could be properly assessed. Then if a genuine need was found, proper arrangements could be made, rather than just dumping someone in the first B+B. It also allows control for effective deportation of bogus claims.
To all those who say this is a prison: I believe this is offering support to those who need this type of support. To those who say its racist - grow up. That's just a cheap, baseless accusation that avoids engaging in real debate on a life or death issue for people seeking asylum.
What a way to treat our fellow human beings. Do the Conservatives think that anyone leaves their own country intending to 'sponge' off another? The asylum seekers, who have usually lost all they ever possessed, are obviously hoping for a better life and we should treat them humanely. I'd rather lock up the person who threw the egg at John Prescott, but the Conservatives would probably disagree.
Marvin Thistle, UK
This Conservative policy is a hopeless mess that can only have been put forward by a party that knows it will lose badly on 7th June. Britain ranks only sixth in Europe in per capita terms for asylum applications. These 'centres' (prisons?), of which there may need to be 10, will cost £40m each to build - and how much to run? The UNHCR has intimated that the policy may even be illegal under international law. Costly, unnecessary, illegal. Well done William.
If properly run, these centres could be a good idea. They would allow asylum seekers access to translators and people who are trained to help them with their cases, and would also prevent the situation where illegal immigrants disappear only to end up exploited as part of the black economy. I don't believe that this idea is racist, but unfortunately it is unlikely to be developed any further by the government as it will be disregarded as such.
The United Kingdom is a very appealing place for economic migrants. Unfortunately, the whole issue surrounding how we deal with them has become emotive and highly politicised. If we impose draconian measures to restrict entry and almost 'punish' people for wanting to enter our society, then the whole migration issue will be driven underground. We must implement a solution that gives people their dignity and respects their human rights. The Tories' approach of incarcerating people until they have been dealt with demonstrates their a complete lack of sensitivity and callousness. It's also a strange issue to be fighting a general election on! What is William Hague doing?
I agree with Mr Hague, stop the bogus asylum seekers and help the genuine ones, but keep them in holding centres/holding towns. We have already lost track of thousands of asylum seekers who have run off once they stabilise themselves here.
Heather Cox, Telford, UK
I have a genuine sympathy for those people who need to escape persecution of any sort in their home country. However, we cannot continue to support the thousands of immigrant arrivals that land on our shores every year, without putting some sort of vetting system into place. I am not a racist, but I believe we should look to those of our own first. If we went to live in another country, who do you think their government would worry about first? I don't think it would be us.
I support the Tories on this issue. Why should Britain be the only country in the world, or certainly Europe, to open its doors to these people? If they travel across Europe, why do they not stay in other EU states? Because we are a soft touch on the welfare benefits. Britain should adopt the same standing as the USA, just look at their immigration at any air- or sea-port.
Asylum seekers have to pass through other western democracies in order to get to the UK. If they were genuine, they should be happy with the first free country they enter. The only exception to this, that I can see, is when they already have family in the UK. These centres will deter the bogus people. Those who have a genuine reason to come here will not be deterred.
Neil Harding, UK
If the Tories are serious about major tax cuts, yet keeping pace with Labour's pledges on public spending, then how are they going to afford to build and run all the detention centres their plans for asylum seekers would demand?
It is a sad state of affairs when HM's opposition cow tows to the lowest common denominator and plays the race card. There are huge issues at stake in terms of the social contract, personal taxation, Europe and globalisation. As a Tory it saddens me that Hague has stooped so low and he will not be receiving my vote this election.
I think it is about time we had a sensible debate about these issues without the threat of being branded racialist if we express any kind of reservations! I would like to ask exactly why several other civilised EC countries are passed though rather than stopped in en route to the UK. Any ideas anyone?
Frank Hynes, Basingstoke, UK
Back in the 1980s all asylum seekers to Finland were promptly thrown in jail to wait for their application to be refused. We had 1 or 2 asylum seekers in a year. After the retirement of Immigration Office´s dragon lady, Eila Kännö, a more liberal policy has been introduced and we have been swarmed...
If we don't get to grips with 10,000's pouring in to Britain each year claiming asylum there is going to be big problems facing the nation. I am not a racist just concerned
I would have thought that someone who is fleeing from a situation where they are in fear for their lives or at great risk of torture would have little to complain about if they were housed in a secure safe compound whilst their case is adjudicated.
Only those who are economic migrants, their liberal apologists and the "refugee industry" could possibly object to this policy.
If the Conservatives manage to get into power and break international agreements then perhaps they should be locked up.
Mike, Harlow, England
No, I don't think so. People running away from tyrants have not committed any crime. Why they should be put in a prison? People running away from wars have not committed any crime. Why they should they be locked up? I do not see the reason for doing so.
Lock up them? But what about democracy and human rights?
My frustration comes from seeing these "refugees from tyranny" abusing our aid. Refugees use vouchers to buy mobile phones in the supermarkets I shop in. Surely mobile phones cannot be classed as essential to life and if these refugees can afford to splash out on what I would class as a frivolous luxury then perhaps we provide them with too much.
I come from Turkey. You must know what's happening in Turkey. Why we came in this country. I thought the England is good country for human right but racism is everywhere.
Dawn Craven, Bradford, England.
The most common argument for putting into practice a barbaric method such as locking up asylum seekers is that they cost tax payers money. The very same argument is applied in the US by those advocating the death penalty, it has also been applied to reduce spending on essential services in Britain and elsewhere. If the UK government is listen to the arguments of bigots in this matter then the UK should not consider itself a civilised country.
The majority of asylum seekers come from countries such as Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan; not countries commonly renowned for their human rights records. So before people bandy terms like "bogus", they might like to ask themselves just how happy they might be living under the Taliban.
I think asylum seekers should be treated with dignity and given a chance to rebuild their lives, not banged up in prison with offenders. It is less costly to allow them to work whilst they await decisions on their cases, than locking them up and having to use thousands of pounds in security, food and housing. Most asylum seekers are genuinely fleeing persecution, are decent law abiding citizens and would be grateful to repay their host countries in form of voluntary work and as tax payers. All those whose cases are unfounded should be returned. It is not fair to brand all of them as bogus.
Claire, Newcastle, UK
I agree with Claire from Newcastle. Britain does need immigrants, skilled immigrants. To replace the skilled emigrants that leave this country for countries that wisely only welcome skilled immigrants.
Anyone notice on the news coverage of Herr Hague's speech in Dover that there was hardly anyone in the audience under 55? Never mind the fact the Tories can't even say how many of these 'secure centres' will be needed or how they will be paid for, rounding innocent people up and detaining them in camps is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The immigration system may well be due for an overhaul but not in such a barbaric manner and I for one am to proud to live in a country which is globally recognised as a place of refugee for the desperate and persecuted. Along with everything else, Labour has been struggling to repair the immense damage the Tories did to this country over 18 years.
Chris, Alnwick, UK
Labour has already hashed the asylum seekers under the new legislation. Many asylum seekers have gone without vouchers or without hearing from Home Office, yet for some it takes a week's decision before even asylum seekers access legal services.
Locking up asylum seekers would be cruel, inhumane, expensive and an affront to basic human dignity.
Who is really 'taking us for a ride', is it the impoverished East European who wants to work whatever hours there are in the day to improve himself and provide for his family? Or is it the Managing Director's and Chief Executives of major firms who get paid millions even when they have reigned over periods of complete failure?
In history the one enduring truth is 'what comes around goes around' Let us all prey that if the roles are reversed the people of the developing world show us compassion, support and understanding, rather than the hatred and ignorance that we have shown them.
It's about time politicians had the courage of their convictions to openly discuss this highly controversial subject. Living in an area where the problem is real, where we see these economic migrants on a daily basis with their mobile phones, cars, lottery scratch-cards, and their menacing nature, I for one will vote on the basis that it is a huge problem and needs addressing.
Yes there are humanitarian considerations, but we have to dispel the so called "soft-touch" name tag we have earned over the past few years and make these people realise that they will be dealt with fairly, on their individual merits but strictly.
Paul, Prague, Czech Republic
I am disgusted by a number of the comments that have been made. Having an opinion about asylum doesn't make you a racist but there are obvious racist undercurrents surrounding this entire debate, I can't believe that in the 21st century there are people in this country who want to shut us off from the rest of the world (except the US) and close our doors to anyone who doesn't 'offer anything' I also think the overcrowding argument is bogus if a couple of hundred thousand millionaires wanted to make their homes here I'm sure we'd find room for them.
I am an Australian, and we have real problems there with people from Asia trying to get into the country, for legitimate as well as non-legitimate reasons. Currently Australia puts these people into detention centres that are no better than ghettos, and the asylum seekers suffer terribly. I would not recommend such a system to be brought in anywhere in the world.
Asylum seekers are just the latest scapegoats. Politicians cause job and housing shortages by refusing to invest; but they don't want to take the blame so they try to pass the buck. A few years ago it was single parents; now it's refugees. Who'll be next? It could be you...
Steve Wade, Ely, England
This is an excellent plan. The suggestion that the taxpayer will be forking out for the construction of these facilities really misses the point that the taxpayer is currently footing the bill for putting them up in temporary accommodation anyway.
If the number of customs officers had not been reduced by the last Conservative government, and the same policy by the present government, would there the asylum question even become an issue?
To solve a problem of sorting out the genuine asylum seekers from those looking for an easy life, would take a large amount of public money. With the Conservatives committed to £20bn in public spending cuts, where will the money come from - teachers or the NHS?
I was unemployed for the first time in 15 years and it was like getting blood out of a stone getting benefit. These scroungers get everything. Put up some signs in every port - sorry, full and skint - and send them all back.
Alex, Slough, UK
So many people using the "soft touch" line, looks like the Tories are running an operation here. As long as capitalism is free to move its operations around the globe people should be free to move too. The fear of anyone foreign expressed by some people shows racism is not dead, as does the constant attacks on asylum seekers here in Glasgow. I wonder how many will be hospitalised tonight as William Hague legitimises racist attacks yet again?
Asylum seekers are like the rest of us - good, bad and indifferent. Some are out to get what they can, others are here out of desperation. No, they should not be locked up but there should be a way of keeping track of them so they can be targeted for help or to ejected from the country.
Lorna, London, UK
If you present yourself at our borders without the proper paperwork you are liable to be deported. If you enter our country illegally you have committed a criminal offence.
It's not a matter of innocent till proven guilty, its about proper investigation, determination and if necessary deportation. They should be held in secure accommodation until determination takes place. Australia does it. Why can't we?
I truly empathise with the plight of genuine refugees. However, consider the number of safe countries that are crossed in order for most of the refugees to get to Britain - why do the refugees not stop and declare refugee status as soon as they reach a safe country? It seems to me that the UNHCR Commissioner is only concerned because the only "problem" created by us getting tough will be an increase in refugee numbers in other countries in Europe. The media also do not represent the Conservative policy correctly, by making out that the accommodation will be similar to a prison, which is not the case.
We should introduce ID cards. One reason why economic migrants are being smuggled through Germany & France to the UK is because it is easier to find illegal work here (they themselves say this).
I fully support the need to give shelter to those suffering genuine persecution but asylum is being used as a catch-all. Even economic migrants might not be a bad thing but at least ID cards would give us some control.
Mike Collier, Portsmouth UK
Whilst I recognise the problem that bogus asylum seekers present, I'm not sure that this will help.
All that I do know is that we have to remember that the UK is a democratic country, and we should not be closing our doors on those who are in genuine need of our support.
I don't have any solution to the problem. I just feel that we, the British public, should recognise our responsibilities as civilised individuals, and not fall prey to the right-wing, narrow minded hysteria that seems to be affecting our country, especially within the media.
As Pastor Niemeller wrote re: nazi Germany 'First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew; Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist; Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for me and there was no-one left to speak out for me.' Message = be careful whose company you keep and whose human rights you view so cheaply.
Tez Houghton, Runcorn,UK
All these people who want refugees locked up keep saying they are not racist, and that they're only against people coming to Britain because it's overcrowded here. The truth is, more people leave Britain each year than come here. So you racists better find another spurious justification for your prejudices.
Only the poor people have to live with them in the poorer areas. The do-gooders want to let them in and then retire to their white leafy areas. My parents lived in Rusholme, Manchester and finished up living in a area which they did not like but did not have the money to move away from.
Having watched and read quite a bit of the election coverage and viewed the specific campaigning of the parties on the issue of asylum seekers, we have come to the view that William Hague's mob are intellectually inanimate.
They managed to dislodge 'tyrants' in Southern Africa surely they can shriek and scream some more about Pakistan, Bosnia, Israel and elsewhere. But then the current leaders of these regimes are not exactly white so it must be racist to even think about it!
|
|
Related stories:
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||
| ||
|
|
|
 |
|
^^ Back to top VOTE2001 | Main Issues| Features | Crucial Seats | Key People | Parties | Results & Constituencies | Candidates | Opinion Polls | Online 1000 | Virtual Vote | Talking Point | Forum | AudioVideo | Programmes | Voting System | Local Elections Nations: N Ireland | Scotland | Wales --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC News>> | To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> |
Ask Jack Straw