Iraqi asylum cheat who got £700,000 in benefits, three houses and private school

[Hitman]

An asylum seeker bought three homes and sent her son to a fee-paying school by illegally claiming more than £700,000 in benefits, a court heard.
Mahira Rustam Al-Azawi, 49, used a series of false identities to milk Britain's lax benefit system over eight years.
Although she never worked, she was able to purchase three properties - two of which she rented out - worth in excess of £1million.
Her 18-year-old son was educated at Colfe's School, in South-East London, where fees are currently £4,164 a term.
The fraud was uncovered only when Al-Azawi, from Iraq, successfully applied for a student loan to study civil engineering at Greenwich University.
When police raided her £800,000 detached home in Bromley, they found an 'Aladdin's cave' of false documents, including a selection of passports, identity papers and driving licences.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289654/Iraqi-asylum-cheat-got-700-000-benefits-houses-private-school-son.html#ixzz0rxSNKYdb



Welcome to the United Kingdom, where entering is easy, cheating our system is easy and we're too blind to see it! :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wonder if she entered via the European Union border 'controls' (of which we have no control of our borders).

At a time when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are cutting benefits for hard pressed families, why are benefits and welfare not being prevented from going to immigrants? why are these people not being deported? ..or more importantly what we should be asking ourselves is; why are these people here in the first place? This is Britain, where the wrong is rewarded and the right is punished and taxed to the front teeth.

[alexxxxx]

I wonder if she entered via the European Union border 'controls' (of which we have no control of our borders).

At a time when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are cutting benefits for hard pressed families, why are benefits and welfare not being prevented from going to immigrants? why are these people not being deported? ..or more importantly what we should be asking ourselves is; why are these people here in the first place? This is Britain, where the wrong is rewarded and the right is punished and taxed to the front teeth.

lol where are these border controls that we have no control of?

have you ever been in a car from dover to callais? there are constant checks and you have to show your passport and documents or you won't get through. and if you are in a coach they make you get out and go through the terminal.

if they were an asylum seeker they probably got a plane to heathrow and then claimed asylum. if you are an asylum seeker you don't have to 'sneak in' because you have a right to security here and if you did you wouldn't get any benefits or housing because you would be completely off the radar.

[Wig44.]

The number of asylum seekers we accept should be: 0. There must be 50+ safe countries between here and the middle-east, including the entire EU.. asylum seekers are supposed to go to the nearest safe country. This really annoys me.

[dbgtz]

I still think they should just remove benefits completely
and tbh making them do work would be good too, and it will be easy to see if someone is using false identities because they couldn't show up for them all therefore they can cut them off and go investigate.

[HotelUser]

She'll be going to jail for a very long time!

[Hitman]

She'll be going to jail for a very long time!
This is the United Kingdom we are talking about, she will get a crap sentence and then be allowed out quicker either due to a blunder or because of "good behaviour" (aka the prisons are too cramped) - then she will be allowed to stay in the country and will no doubt claim again.

If you think that is a load of ******** you are mistaken; one man (an asylum seeker who had appealed his rejection) was driving illegally without a licence or insurance and struck a man on a moped. This man died and the asylum seeker got 4 years in jail I believe... and he will not be deported.

[Nemo]

I still think they should just remove benefits completely
and tbh making them do work would be good too, and it will be easy to see if someone is using false identities because they couldn't show up for them all therefore they can cut them off and go investigate.
thank god you aint in power.

And you lot seem all patriotic, but you just seem to bad mouth much of what happens in the UK, go and become a politician and lets see what kind if difference you can make and if people agree with you or not.

[Moh]

This is one of the reasons I dislike asylum seekers coming to this country.

If they come over here to work, bring their culture and food then that's ok, they're contributing to the community. But when you get them coming just for the benefits then it's just ridiculous.

Since jobs are very low, I personally think we should stop accepting them until the recession etc.. is over.

[alexxxxx]

i always feel like people don't know the difference between:

Asylum Seeker, Illegal Immigrant and Immigrant and EU-Immigrant

[ifuseekamy]

What are they seeking asylum from? What is so bad they have to travel a third of the way across the world to escape it?

[Sameer!]

This is unbelievable and completely wrong. wow.... she better pay all of it back

[Hitman]

thank god you aint in power.

And you lot seem all patriotic, but you just seem to bad mouth much of what happens in the UK, go and become a politician and lets see what kind if difference you can make and if people agree with you or not.
And you are always defensive when it comes to immigrants or immigration. I believe you are of Pakistani ethnic origin, so I can see why but I'm not on an all out rampage to kick everybody out who doesn't have family who were born here 1generations ago! :P

I do not need to become a politician, there are a few that are trying to make a difference, hence I support UKIP - what is the point in creating yet another political party? And the voting system is rather unfair, almost one million votes for UKIP yet no seats.

[Camy]

just shows how easy the system can be cheated and abused.

[GommeInc]

It's amazing they don't actually have a system in place :/ If people need benefits, they should have their yearly income watched and analysed, including homes, furniture, healthcare, schools and so forth.

[Nemo]

And you are always defensive when it comes to immigrants or immigration. I believe you are of Pakistani ethnic origin, so I can see why but I'm not on an all out rampage to kick everybody out who doesn't have family who were born here 1generations ago! :P

I do not need to become a politician, there are a few that are trying to make a difference, hence I support UKIP - what is the point in creating yet another political party? And the voting system is rather unfair, almost one million votes for UKIP yet no seats.
Not really, i tend to not get involved in the political discussion in hxf since people seem to get a lil personal about it, so i only really talk in like BNP threads.

And if you want a system like the weimar repub (look at me knowin history!) then be my guest, i just hope im not the jew this time.

[alexxxxx]

It's amazing they don't actually have a system in place :/ If people need benefits, they should have their yearly income watched and analysed, including homes, furniture, healthcare, schools and so forth.
a system and a department who's job is to do that would probably cost more than false benefit claimants. and claimants are caught now so i think this would be a waste of £ tbh.

[Tintinnabulate]

I still think they should just remove benefits completely

You obviously do not realise how many families in this country rely on them.

[Aces]

Awesome cheat, too bad I didn't think of it..

Don't be too quick to throw out all the asylum seekers/immigrants just because one ***** decided to **** the system. I'm really surprised how the younger generations of Britain are so much against immigrants.

[-:Undertaker:-]

lol where are these border controls that we have no control of?

have you ever been in a car from dover to callais? there are constant checks and you have to show your passport and documents or you won't get through. and if you are in a coach they make you get out and go through the terminal.

if they were an asylum seeker they probably got a plane to heathrow and then claimed asylum. if you are an asylum seeker you don't have to 'sneak in' because you have a right to security here and if you did you wouldn't get any benefits or housing because you would be completely off the radar.

If you have open borders across Europe then you have no control via your borders. Just now we have the government proposing a limit on non-EU immigration because it has no power to limit EU immigration. The issue of asylum is also jointly linked because they travel across the European Union to get here - most of Europe is 'free' according to the European Union, so why do they feel the need to across numerous countries and the English Channel to come here?

Could it possibly be benefits?.. mm I do wonder.


thank god you aint in power.

And you lot seem all patriotic, but you just seem to bad mouth much of what happens in the UK, go and become a politician and lets see what kind if difference you can make and if people agree with you or not.

The reason why many people give up is because people such as yourself jump on the racist bandwagon against various groups such as the BNP but at the same time neglect to even criticise the Labour and Tory parties race-related policies. I mean for instance, UKIP has even been called racist by the loons both on here and the crackpots within the Lib/Lab/Con parties despite the fact that UKIP is the only party out of the five main to not have any policies based on race, gender or sexuality.


Not really, i tend to not get involved in the political discussion in hxf since people seem to get a lil personal about it, so i only really talk in like BNP threads.

And if you want a system like the weimar repub (look at me knowin history!) then be my guest, i just hope im not the jew this time.

The Weimar Republic had a PR voting system from what I recall, meaning that every vote counts. Now hang on a second, are you actually telling me that some votes shouldnt be counted because of the party they count towards? (possibly the BNP?) - if so, then what an arrogant and despotic stance to take on peoples beliefs and political viewpoints.

Its all very well debating and discussion, but to ban freedom of speech does exactly what the state which succeeded the Weimar Republic practicied.

[Bailey]

The reason why many people give up is because people such as yourself jump on the racist bandwagon against various groups such as the BNP but at the same time neglect to even criticise the Labour and Tory parties race-related policies. I mean for instance, UKIP has even been called racist by the loons both on here and the crackpots within the Lib/Lab/Con parties despite the fact that UKIP is the only party out of the five main to not have any policies based on race, gender or sexuality

Agreed on the UKIP front, during the election a UKIP poster was defaced with "racism" and "xenophobia" written all over the poster, shows how clueless people are really.

On topic: A sentence that is a waste of taxpayers money, then she'll go back to her daily routine, lifes a *****.

[MrPinkPanther]

If you have open borders across Europe then you have no control via your borders. Just now we have the government proposing a limit on non-EU immigration because it has no power to limit EU immigration. The issue of asylum is also jointly linked because they travel across the European Union to get here - most of Europe is 'free' according to the European Union, so why do they feel the need to across numerous countries and the English Channel to come here?
Firstly we do have control over our borders and we are one of the few EU countries to do so. We currently do NOT have to take in immigrants from any of the countries that joined the EU in 2004 or 2007 (eastern european countries) but we chose to do so anyway because they benefit to our economy.

Secondly a lower percentage of our population are immigrants compared to most of Europe, below 9% in fact. Even a country considered to be "tough" on immigration like Germany has over 12%.

Thirdly why should countries have to take on additional asylum seekers just because of their geographical location? I don't believe Britain should take on all asylum seekers but the fact is we don't, very few try to make it to Britain but we need to take care of those who do and pull our weight on the world stage. It's only fair.

Fourthly I don't think you understand asylum seeking. It's because they've faced an oppressive regime. This doesn't mean someone isn't them giving them freedom of speech, no. It means that they imprisoned, tortured or even facing the death penalty having done absolutely nothing. Imagine if you were oppressed for being homosexual and you were going to be killed for it, you escaped to Britain only to be told you were being deported back to the region you came from.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Firstly we do have control over our borders and we are one of the few EU countries to do so. We currently do NOT have to take in immigrants from any of the countries that joined the EU in 2004 or 2007 (eastern european countries) but we chose to do so anyway because they benefit to our economy.

Secondly a lower percentage of our population are immigrants compared to most of Europe, below 9% in fact. Even a country considered to be "tough" on immigration like Germany has over 12%.

Thirdly why should countries have to take on additional asylum seekers just because of their geographical location? I don't believe Britain should take on all asylum seekers but the fact is we don't, very few try to make it to Britain but we need to take care of those who do and pull our weight on the world stage. It's only fair.

Fourthly I don't think you understand asylum seeking. It's because they've faced an oppressive regime. This doesn't mean someone isn't them giving them freedom of speech, no. It means that they imprisoned, tortured or even facing the death penalty having done absolutely nothing. Imagine if you were oppressed for being homosexual and you were going to be killed for it, you escaped to Britain only to be told you were being deported back to the region you came from.

The Eastern European decision, oh what a farce that was I remember. I think it was that Labour estimated something like 13,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe and it turned into the hundreds of thousands - so I think you'll appreciate the fact that many people will not take you or the other advocates seriously on that factor/front.

Secondly, I could not really care about other countries if I am honest regarding this issue. I live in the United Kingdom, I want my government to have control over its borders thus including EU immigration. A sovereign country is supposed to have control of its own borders, its one of the basic foundations of control and sovereignty. Our country has a generous welfare system and that must be protected and not overloaded.

Other countries should take on their load if they wish to do so, if not then that is solely their decision and one I think people across the world should decide in referendums which asylum and immigration policies they wish to adopt. If asylum seekers are really escaping persecution then why would they travel across various free countries to come here? - surely if you are escaping danger you dont particulary care about where you land aslong as its safety?

Lastly, if we thought in that manner then we'd have most North Koreans coming here, most Africans, most Indians in poverty and so on. It is not realistic nor practical. The difference between my stance and your own is that mine is realistic, yours is idealistic. The immigration policy itself; personally I dont agree with any type of limit on immigration, but I do want restrictions on immigration and asylum which allow only the best into this country.

[Nemo]

The Weimar Republic had a PR voting system from what I recall, meaning that every vote counts. Now hang on a second, are you actually telling me that some votes shouldnt be counted because of the party they count towards? (possibly the BNP?) - if so, then what an arrogant and despotic stance to take on peoples beliefs and political viewpoints.

Its all very well debating and discussion, but to ban freedom of speech does exactly what the state which succeeded the Weimar Republic practicied.
Ya this is why i dont get involved, i dont know massive amounts and you guys take it super serious, can i run away now? :p

[MrPinkPanther]

Ya this is why i dont get involved, i dont know massive amounts and you guys take it super serious, can i run away now? :p

I'll back you up cause i'm nice like that and I like arguing with Dan ;D.

Dan, does Weimar Germany not indicate what happens when you allow derogatory language to be used upon those who some people believe to be inferior? Look at the 1920's, Germany was one of the most free and perhaps liberal countries on Earth, Berlin was even the Gay capital of the world. However after the economic turmoil in the late 1920's people began to look for a scapegoat, this was blamed on the Jews. Now because they had no anti-racist legislation this idea that the Jews were to blame was allowed to breed and spread throughout much of the population. It's exactly what I said to you before that allowing "derogatory language" will eventually lead to violence because it means that people believe that they are allowed to consider people inferior and it spreads that whole idea. Until Kristallnacht there wasn't really any widespread violence against the Jews or other "undesirables", it was purely verbal and look what happened within 10 years of Kristallnacht, 15 Million dead.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'll back you up cause i'm nice like that and I like arguing with Dan ;D.

Dan, does Weimar Germany not indicate what happens when you allow derogatory language to be used upon those who some people believe to be inferior? Look at the 1920's, Germany was one of the most free and perhaps liberal countries on Earth, Berlin was even the Gay capital of the world. However after the economic turmoil in the late 1920's people began to look for a scapegoat, this was blamed on the Jews. Now because they had no anti-racist legislation this idea that the Jews were to blame was allowed to breed and spread throughout much of the population. It's exactly what I said to you before that allowing "derogatory language" will eventually lead to violence because it means that people believe that they are allowed to consider people inferior and it spreads that whole idea. Until Kristallnacht there wasn't really any widespread violence against the Jews or other "undesirables", it was purely verbal and look what happened within 10 years of Kristallnacht, 15 Million dead.

I have said before, there is a big difference between negative opinions and inciting violence. The Nazis incited violence and used bullying tactics to take control, infact they even used socialism as a method to get the poorest on board with the Nazi project much like modern parties do nowadays with welfare and benefits bribes (you only have to see the reaction of teenagers when their EMA is threatened to be taken away). If somebody does not like gays then they should be allowed to say that - that is freedom of speech. It must not though, incite violence against people.

The rise of the Nazi Party was quite unrelated about the Jewish issue, infact it was mostly other factors hence why when the Third Reich did fall and and extent of the death camps was revealed (a suprise even to the Allied Forced) it was shock and horror at what had been done - a lot was done in secret.

[Axel]

I still think they should just remove benefits completely


What a brilliant idea!

The fact is, some people actually need benefits. But the sad truth is, a lot of people exploit the system for their own personal gains.

Also, people talking about Weimar having proportional representation, that is one of the contributors to the fall of the Weimar republic and the rise of the Nazis - thanks to proportional representation being allowed in the constitution, from the outset the Weimar republic was doomed to be a series of politically unstable and short-lived coalition governments - and it was. There were various different coalitions, and they all failed. It was only until Hitler and the Nazis made a coalition with the DNVP in 1933, with which they shared a few ideals, that a 'stable' government was created. That turned out well, right?

[-:Undertaker:-]

What a brilliant idea!

The fact is, some people actually need benefits. But the sad truth is, a lot of people exploit the system for their own personal gains.

Also, people talking about Weimar having proportional representation, that is one of the contributors to the fall of the Weimar republic and the rise of the Nazis - thanks to proportional representation being allowed in the constitution, from the outset the Weimar republic was doomed to be a series of politically unstable and short-lived coalition governments - and it was. There were various different coalitions, and they all failed. It was only until Hitler and the Nazis made a coalition with the DNVP in 1933, with which they shared a few ideals, that a 'stable' government was created. That turned out well, right?

If a Nazi Party is voted in then how can you argue against its legitamacy? - if you argue against 'one vote = one count' then you are arguing against democracy and the right of people to vote on their government - exactly what the Nazi Party went on to carry out. The proportional representation system had very little to do with the rise of the Nazis and is often used by advocates of the FPTP system to keep it in place, along with the Lib/Lab/Con ruling elite who are virtually unremovable in terms of seats, apart from a small number of marginals.

[Inseriousity.]

According to the DWP, the government lost around £900m in "benefit theft" in 2005, but HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), when asked how much the government was missing out in terms of lost revenue from tax evasion, said that "it is not possible to quantify a negative figure". However, Treasury papers leaked in June last year reveal that the government estimates a staggering annual loss of between £97bn and £150bn to tax theft, representing an appalling 8% to 12% of the nation's GDP.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/10/comment.society

It's a really old news story but it did make me wonder who the real criminals are.

Is there really any need for the 'Iraqi' bit in the headline though? It's once again the Daily Mail's continued attack against the ethnic minorities. There will also be white people abusing the benefits system we've got as well and it's rather sad how the media continues to attack certain groups (teenagers as another example). However, she should be deported. If we let them in, they must follow our rules but thankfully, the majority of them do. :)

[Axel]

If a Nazi Party is voted in then how can you argue against its legitamacy? - if you argue against 'one vote = one count' then you are arguing against democracy and the right of people to vote on their government - exactly what the Nazi Party went on to carry out. The proportional representation system had very little to do with the rise of the Nazis and is often used by advocates of the FPTP system to keep it in place, along with the Lib/Lab/Con ruling elite who are virtually unremovable in terms of seats, apart from a small number of marginals.

Directly, it didn't bring about the rise of the Nazis, but it is partly the reason why the Nazis in to power - if it wasn't for all the failed coalitions governments, Hindenburg would never have been swayed to let Hitler become chancellor and the nazis to form a majority with the DNVP.

[alexxxxx]

If you have open borders across Europe then you have no control via your borders. Just now we have the government proposing a limit on non-EU immigration because it has no power to limit EU immigration. The issue of asylum is also jointly linked because they travel across the European Union to get here - most of Europe is 'free' according to the European Union, so why do they feel the need to across numerous countries and the English Channel to come here?

Could it possibly be benefits?.. mm I do wonder.

are you stupid?

an illegal immigrant should be stopped by our border controls (we are an island for heaven's sake). asylum seekers are not always penniless and destitute - they will get on a plane. the rule is that asylum seekers have to stop in the first safe country they come across - which is what the majority do.

this has absolutely NOTHING to do with immigration whatsoever. this is to do with an asylum seeker which are completely different things - but the mailites like to put them all into one thing.

i doubt this family didnt have money to start with. they lived in a £1million house whilst having swindled £700k - where did the other £300k come from?

The EU had nothing to do with this benefit fraud. But again EU/Immigration/Asylum Seekers - they're all the same thing..

[-:Undertaker:-]

are you stupid?

an illegal immigrant should be stopped by our border controls (we are an island for heaven's sake). asylum seekers are not always penniless and destitute - they will get on a plane. the rule is that asylum seekers have to stop in the first safe country they come across - which is what the majority do.

this has absolutely NOTHING to do with immigration whatsoever. this is to do with an asylum seeker which are completely different things - but the mailites like to put them all into one thing.

i doubt this family didnt have money to start with. they lived in a £1million house whilst having swindled £700k - where did the other £300k come from?

The EU had nothing to do with this benefit fraud. But again EU/Immigration/Asylum Seekers - they're all the same thing..

It must be the other way around, because if you look at a map with the pair of eyes you have been given then you can see that infront of the United Kingdom there are various safe countries (France, Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine etc etc etc etc) - meaning with your explanation of it, we'd end up with no asylum seekers at all.

I never said they were all the same, had you read what I put you would see (using your eyes again) that I set out what I think of both asylum policy, immigration policy and the EU open door policy.


It's a really old news story but it did make me wonder who the real criminals are.

Is there really any need for the 'Iraqi' bit in the headline though? It's once again the Daily Mail's continued attack against the ethnic minorities. There will also be white people abusing the benefits system we've got as well and it's rather sad how the media continues to attack certain groups (teenagers as another example). However, she should be deported. If we let them in, they must follow our rules but thankfully, the majority of them do. :)

Oh another attack on a newspaper, and you quote the Guardian in response as though its on a higher level.. I mean come on now. :rolleyes:

The media attack immigrants/asylum seekers because the system is totally out of control, we have lazy people here (the media havent mentioned skin colour at all, you are the one who has brought that up) but we dont need more lazy people from other countries now, do we?

Do we need more lazy people from other countries to add to an already bloated welfare state - answer me that.


Directly, it didn't bring about the rise of the Nazis, but it is partly the reason why the Nazis in to power - if it wasn't for all the failed coalitions governments, Hindenburg would never have been swayed to let Hitler become chancellor and the nazis to form a majority with the DNVP.

The Nazis got a good proportion of the vote though, so you are basically arguing for an end to voting incase a lunactic party such as the Nazi Party gain power. It isnt an excuse to discount my vote or millions of other votes around this country.

[MrPinkPanther]

If somebody does not like gays then they should be allowed to say that - that is freedom of speech. It must not though, incite violence against people.
So tell me in the 1920's and 1930's did your average piece of propaganda incite violence? Did your average German walk around telling people to kick Jews heads in? No. It was a gradual transition. Inciting hatred towards a population is only one step away from inciting violence. They come hand in hand. The Nazis were only the catalyst, by the 1930's the anti-semetic feeling was so strong that something simply HAD to happen against them. Hitler was reportedly furious about early violent attacks on the Jews, he hadn't started them, it was out of even the Nazis control.


The rise of the Nazi Party was quite unrelated about the Jewish issue, infact it was mostly other factors hence why when the Third Reich did fall and and extent of the death camps was revealed (a suprise even to the Allied Forced) it was shock and horror at what had been done - a lot was done in secret.
Of course it was done in secret but that changes absolutely nothing? I'm talking about the anti-semites in the transition period from the 1920's and 1930's because the Nazis only capitalised on the wave of anti-semitism, they didn't create it themselves. It had already spread. Oh and the Allied forces did know about Auschwitz and death camps, Churchill wished to bomb them but they were deep in enemy territories and only the Americans flew by day, the British wouldn't have been able to locate them accurately.

Anyway, alas I feel we may be getting a little bit off topic here :)

[Axel]

It must be the other way around, because if you look at a map with the pair of eyes you have been given then you can see that infront of the United Kingdom there are various safe countries (France, Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine etc etc etc etc) - meaning with your explanation of it, we'd end up with no asylum seekers at all.

I never said they were all the same, had you read what I put you would see (using your eyes again) that I set out what I think of both asylum policy, immigration policy and the EU open door policy.



Oh another attack on a newspaper, and you quote the Guardian in response as though its on a higher level.. I mean come on now. :rolleyes:

The media attack immigrants/asylum seekers because the system is totally out of control, we have lazy people here (the media havent mentioned skin colour at all, you are the one who has brought that up) but we dont need more lazy people from other countries now, do we?

Do we need more lazy people from other countries to add to an already bloated welfare state - answer me that.



The Nazis got a good proportion of the vote though, so you are basically arguing for an end to voting incase a lunactic party such as the Nazi Party gain power. It isnt an excuse to discount my vote or millions of other votes around this country.

My point is that no matter how democratic proportional representation is, it'll just lead to politically unstable coalitions, which won't help the country at all.

[MrPinkPanther]

My point is that no matter how democratic proportional representation is, it'll just lead to politically unstable coalitions, which won't help the country at all.
I'd put democracy over a large majority any day. The fundamental principle of a government is that it is supposed to represent the people, if you elect it using "First past the post" then it doesn't accurately portray the countries viewpoint as a whole which means that the government is, to put it bluntly, illegitimate. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are about as different as you can get in mainstream politics but they seem to be doing quite well and as a result the Government reflects a wider array of views.

[Inseriousity.]

Oh another attack on a newspaper, and you quote the Guardian in response as though its on a higher level.. I mean come on now. :rolleyes:

The media attack immigrants/asylum seekers because the system is totally out of control, we have lazy people here (the media havent mentioned skin colour at all, you are the one who has brought that up) but we dont need more lazy people from other countries now, do we?

Firstly, I have never said the Guardian is on a higher level. I don't even read it, I actually saw the article outside my sociology classroom and searched Google to find it. I just quoted it to prove my point the very same way that you and many others use the Daily Mail to prove yours. Nothing wrong with that?

Secondly, stop being so naive, you know as well as I do that when people say 'Iraqi' (as mentioned in the title of this thread), they don't exactly think of white people. No we do not need lazy people from other countries but we do need to stop attacking them as if they're the only lazy people in Britain, which is the message that the Daily Mail puts across. That's my opinion, you're obviously going to disagree with it and there's nothing wrong with that either.

[alexxxxx]

It must be the other way around, because if you look at a map with the pair of eyes you have been given then you can see that infront of the United Kingdom there are various safe countries (France, Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine etc etc etc etc) - meaning with your explanation of it, we'd end up with no asylum seekers at all.

i don't have numbers on this but i suspect the largest number of people come on PLANES. anyone who's come through any other country isn't a true asylum seeker. the people who live around french ports are illegal immigrants (in france) and to-be illegal immigrants in the UK - not true asylum seekers.



I never said they were all the same, had you read what I put you would see (using your eyes again) that I set out what I think of both asylum policy, immigration policy and the EU open door policy.

well it doesn't really belong in this thread does it?