"Mait001" wrote in message
...
But some random asylum seeker is a person who hasn't done anything to
offend you beyond existing. It's not analogous to the mere presence of
asylum seekers, because it's not the presence of Bush that they're
protesting about. It's the things that Bush has done and may yet do.
It'd be like expressing your disagreement and dislike of an asylum
seeker who regularly kicked dogs if you were opposed to the kicking of
dogs.

I happen to know (as does the Government and most of the legal profession)
that
the VAST majority of asylum seekers are here simply as economic migrants,
and I
object in principle to them coming here for that reason. That does not
give me
the right to treat them unfairly, despit the fact that I daily see the
harm
that their presence is doing to the GENUINE asylum seekers and race
relations
generally. The problem is one caused by the Government, and it is to it
that I
would address my objections.

The economic migrant claim is simply untrue. One of my best friends works
for a law firm that works on asylum cases, and says otherwise. A large
proportion of them have some form of proffessional training, and they pay
more tax into the system than take benefits out. Can you supply stats to
back up that statement?

You do not lock yourself in a box with thirty other people for a week
because there's a better rate of dole here. The majority of these people are
fleeing something pretty terrible.

Apart from anything else, Britain is the most popular asylum destination in
Europe not because of anything to do with our welfare state - it's because
we speak English that we're a more attractive option.

Jonn