[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The reason asylum seekers are part of my arguments is simply because the 2 things are linked, if you have an open immigration policy then quite simply there will be more asylum seekers the two things come hand in hand so asylum seekers costs should be counted as part of costs associated with immigration.

Immigrants from countries such as australia and american I would expect to have lower costs as there shouldnt be so much of a language and culture barrier but they of course all add to the overcrowding problems we have in this country.

We don't have an open immigration policy, and we have a reduction in asylum applications (simply because the conflicts around the world causing asylum seekers have been resolved in many cases).
Asylum seekers' only option is benefits.
Most immigrants don't have that option, they can only work for a living.
My gf, South African, can't get JSA, can't get housing benefit, can't get hospital treatment on the NHS other than A&E.
If she were pregnant, we'd have to pay up to £9K to have our baby born in a hospital.
Yet you're unable to differentiate between that and an asylum seeker?
Come off it! It's not hard.

Originally Posted by chrysalis

Regarding the native stuff I knew it would be questioned but hard to word what I am on about. Its not merely about religion but more to do with language and culture barriers.

Like an Englishman moving to Wales and not being able to speak the language?
Or someone from the deep west country not being understood in London? How are your bunty chompers?
Or the cultural barrier between northeners and southerners?