A tad harsh perhaps

Denmark has passed a law enabling it to process asylum seekers outside Europe, drawing anger from human rights advocates, the UN and European Commission.

Well, where?

Denmark has yet to reach an agreement with a partner country, but Stoklund said there were negotiations with several candidate countries.

In April, Denmark’s immigration minister, Mattias Tesfaye, whose father was an Ethiopian immigrant, appeared in Rwanda on an unannounced visit to the central African nation, which led to the signing of diplomatic agreements on asylum and political matters.

Well, yes, that could well reduce the flow of asylum seekers into Denmark…..

For our own problems with those coming over the Channel. Why not put our processing centre in some exciting part of France like, say, Lille?

13 thoughts on “A tad harsh perhaps”

  1. I would note that there’s a historical precedent for housing someone who comes from France on St Helena.

  2. You can process them at Lille, but when they fail the processing they will head to Calais anyway.

  3. … drawing anger from human rights advocates, the UN and European Commission.

    Or anti-White pieces of s**t as I like to call them.

    Why not put our processing centre in some exciting part of France like, say, Lille?

    Could we use Ascension Island?

    Of course that would assume the Powers That Be actually had any desire to stop the flow of foreign invaders into the UK. They don’t.

  4. I’ve often wondered why we don’t make an agreement with some African nation to take our illegal migrants, for a consideration of course. It would be a lot cheaper than maintaining them ourselves.

    It would also be fun to watch the NGOs tie themselves in knots, since we could point out their racism when they complain. After all, the reason illegals claim to be fleeing whatever hellhole they come from is ‘safety’, not money, so they can’t object to another country willing to take them in unless they’re racist.

    Another reason is that a lot of these people come from warmer climes and would, no doubt, prefer a nice warm country to wet and windy Britain.

  5. @ Tom
    Governments in African nations comprise human beings who can die very easily if they upset too many vested interests, such as people-smugglers in other African countries.
    And Liberia hasn’t been a massive success story.

  6. “Why not put our processing centre in some exciting part of France like, say, Lille?”

    Since Département du Nord demonstrates such firm support for the fragrant Marine, an amusing suggestion.

  7. In the Old Days, when we had an empire, we could have processed all these asylum seekers in sonewhere like Nigeria or Iraq or Palestine or India.


  8. As I understand an Asylum seeker is running away from danger to get to a safe place. Therefore it would be perfectly reasonable to have a policy in which all Asylum seekers are deported once their application has been evaluated. Those who are accepted are sent to another safe country. Those who are rejected are sent to their country of origin. And those who have reasonable grounds for appeal are also sent to another safe country where their appeal is heard. What better way to ensure an fair appeal than to have one’s application examined by a completely separate asylum process. This should not be a problem for those genuinely seeking safety but it is very bad news if you are using asylum as a way to circumvent immigration rules.

  9. @Bill
    An Asylum seeker is looking for a permanent new country because they can’t live in their current country anymore due to their political, religious etc beliefs. The UK has a long tradition of housing Asylum seekers.

    A Refugee is looking for a temporary country as their current one is unliveable in due to war or environmental disaster etc. No problem with housing them for a bit.

    Whether any of the hundreds arriving from a safe country like France fall into the above categories or are economic migrants is another matter.

  10. A few years ago the UK government was housing a number of asylum-seekers in one of the worst housing estates in Glasgow (an ex-Glaswegian friend’s comments showed he regarded the area to be as bad as the Gorbals was before it was slum-cleared) where there were empty flats because native Glaswegians were not willing to live there even at rents half the Glasgow market rate – until the tower blocks were dynamited because they could not be improved *enough* to make them fit for human occupation (C21 standards for UK citizens). It should surprise no-one that the ones who stayed there (and were subsequently scattered around Glasgow) were genuine refugees fleeing something worse. One problem with this solution is that it did *nothing* to stop fake “refugees” economic migrants from disappearing into the black economy in/around London.

  11. Surely it’s an advantage to asylum seekers to seek asylum in the embassy instead of the danger of having to trek several thousand miles over land and sea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *