Afghanistan n/g | Page 6 | Vital Football

Afghanistan n/g

I must admit that I find many things difficult to comprehend.
Many Muslims wish to live in predominantly Christian countries when there are literally loads of majority Muslim countries nearer.
Many black people wish to live in predominantly white countries when there are literally loads of predominantly black countries that they could choose to live in and not have the spectre of potential racism hanging over them.
British people choose to live on the Costas and then try to turn them into mini Britain.
City dwellers move to the country and complain about the smell and lack of facilities.
Certain football fans choose to support a small local provincial team and then complain about lack of ambition.
I just don’t get it .
 
ThreeSixes said:
I'm guessing you are not. I hope you are not a rape counsellor either, with your "we did it to them first, so it's only fair ...." responses
Click to expand...
Blimey, that's a bit of a leap and a pretty low shot. Do you seriously believe that I would defend any rapist, whatever their religion, culture, etc? Perhaps I should offer a comeback of that, for you "it's ok for christians to rape but not Muslims"....fortunately that isn't something I would subscribe to saying as I am sure, like me, you would want any sexual abuser punished as severly as possible.
 
Gilles Lingam said:
Not often you're left speechless Bud !!?!

:ooops:
Click to expand...

Ha ha!

I started to write a response to 3x6 but then thought better if it. I'm just not sure I can be bothered with him anymore. Frankly, I find so many of his posts, and the opinions he expresses within them (sometimes in a forthright manner, sometimes obliquely), to be quite depressing.

No doubt he'll now try to reel me in with some witty and provocative comment (though I do hope he doesn't). But I'm thinking that perhaps I've finally reached the stage where I can just be quietly depressed by his posts.

Watch this space....
 
shotshy said:
I must admit that I find many things difficult to comprehend.
Many Muslims wish to live in predominantly Christian countries when there are literally loads of majority Muslim countries nearer.
Many black people wish to live in predominantly white countries when there are literally loads of predominantly black countries that they could choose to live in and not have the spectre of potential racism hanging over them.
British people choose to live on the Costas and then try to turn them into mini Britain.
City dwellers move to the country and complain about the smell and lack of facilities.
Certain football fans choose to support a small local provincial team and then complain about lack of ambition.
I just don’t get it .
Click to expand...

Inconvenient truths - human programming.
 
It may well be some kind of subtle programming Jerry.
I watched a piece on RT a few weeks back about a family from Senegal who had arrived in the U.K. and claimed asylum.
They used all of their money flying firstly to Paris and then on to Heathrow
The father claimed asylum based on his fear of reprisals due to his political views.
They were sent to the arsehole end of Glasgow and absolutely hated it and wanted to go back.
My first question was, does the U.K. have connections with Senegal?
I know France does but he travelled through that to get here.
I wondered why, if he was in fear for his life, did he not just go to a neighbouring country.
My suspicion is that someone had told him that the U.K. offered free accommodation but failed to mention where it might be. He probably expected to be in London.
He said that his family are now trying to raise money for their return and I wondered if the threat to his life still exists.
 
shotshy said:
He said that his family are now trying to raise money for their return and I wondered if the threat to his life still exists.
Click to expand...

Same as the Afghans. I posted it before, but I've seen 4 or 5 different stories of "British" Afghans trapped in Afghanistan. Fled the country in fear of their life - gained residence in the UK - popped back to Afghanistan for a hol to see the folks (including their wife in one case!).

Asylum should be temporary. If you fled Iraq because Saddam Hussein, you should havr gone back to Iraq when he went. If you don't, it's clearly not Asylum
 
ThreeSixes said:
Asylum should be temporary. If you fled Iraq because Saddam Hussein, you should havr gone back to Iraq when he went. If you don't, it's clearly not Asylum
Click to expand...

Slightly too simplistic. In the aftermath of Saddam being removed then he would still have had plenty of supporters floating around that would have made it questionable about their safety if they returned. There was a bit of a power vaccum in the aftermath which required the US to hang around for at least a decade. Even when the dictator has been removed, the structure that enabled the dictator to exist still exists (even if in a reduced/damaged form)

However, if the asylum seeker did willingly return to the home of their birth then it obviously does give a strong message that the danger and risk has sufficently subsided. But even then, if a person has lived here for (say) a decade, has settled and is a contributing and law abiding member of society then it would seem harsh to remove them. Although presumably they would qualify for and could apply for UK citizenship which I am assuming would make them no longer asylum seekers?
 
shotshy said:
It may well be some kind of subtle programming Jerry.
I watched a piece on RT a few weeks back about a family from Senegal who had arrived in the U.K. and claimed asylum.
They used all of their money flying firstly to Paris and then on to Heathrow
The father claimed asylum based on his fear of reprisals due to his political views.
They were sent to the arsehole end of Glasgow and absolutely hated it and wanted to go back.
My first question was, does the U.K. have connections with Senegal?
I know France does but he travelled through that to get here.
I wondered why, if he was in fear for his life, did he not just go to a neighbouring country.
My suspicion is that someone had told him that the U.K. offered free accommodation but failed to mention where it might be. He probably expected to be in London.
He said that his family are now trying to raise money for their return and I wondered if the threat to his life still exists.
Click to expand...

Its just human history. All of our ancestors were immigrants sometime in history and spread across the world for the same type of reasons plus slavery, convicts, etc.

Similar to the british moving to north america, australia, NZ, SA, india, etc.

Knowing this it is no use blaming the migrant for following their human programming. It is up to the states to manage their current borders ( until the borders of that country changes lol).
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
But even then, if a person has lived here for (say) a decade, has settled and is a contributing and law abiding member of society then it would seem harsh to remove them. Although presumably they would qualify for and could apply for UK citizenship which I am assuming would make them no longer asylum seekers?
Click to expand...

But if the reason for them claiming asylum is no longer applicable, aren't they taking up the space of someone that IS in current danger? It can't be a one way street, there isn't capacity for that
 
ThreeSixes said:
But if the reason for them claiming asylum is no longer applicable, aren't they taking up the space of someone that IS in current danger? It can't be a one way street, there isn't capacity for that
Click to expand...

For me it comes down to the passing of time. If the person has been in the UK for a year and then sneaks back to their native country then sure. Classify them as "not in danger" and cancel their asylum status.

But if they have been in the country for 10 years and has largely assimilated themselves into UK culture and has been working and paying their taxes etc then I find it hard to raise a case of kicking them out even if it is deemed safe.
 
I know Iranians who came over in 70’s when they were kids and never went back. They believe they’d be arrested. I believe they’re right. If you’re working, paying your taxes, and not making a bloody nuisance of yourself, you should be allowed to stay -resident at least. Of course I would say that, and down the line, there maybe the problem of kids who feel like they don’t belong etc etc.
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
But if they have been in the country for 10 years and has largely assimilated themselves into UK culture and has been working and paying their taxes etc then I find it hard to raise a case of kicking them out even if it is deemed safe.
Click to expand...

Is that the test then, "largely assimilated themselves into UK culture"? The middle class dentist who turns out for the local cricket team can stay, the lower class taxi driver who marries within his own community and goes to the mosque can go?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.