Workingman wrote:I do agree that Afghan interpretors used by the UK should be granted asylum here, the rest, though, are passing through safe-havens and should be rejected.
Yes I'm in agreement with that totally too.
Britain has a track record of abusing those who have served them well. Labour were particularly poor at this with the Ghurkas whilst opening the country up to all and sundry illegally.
Those who pass through safe haven's generally do so for economic reasons. Anyone who is truly in dire straits will take the first opportunity of sanctuary. However I do also recognise that this sanctuary comes at a somewhat Ghetto price.
To me this is a case of people breaking international law because the grass is greener and the governments letting them do so because they don't want to be seen as "racist". It's time to separate the truly needy from those who just want a quick win. Because we can't accommodate them all and those who just want a quick win don't care about the truly needy.
So our language needs to change and when the language changes we enable our politicians to take different action. This, to me, is what Cameron is trying to do and the press, because they don't like him, are not only not helping bur are actually sabotaging his attempt to secure our borders.
Blairite press are not my favourite animals...