The word “asylum” should be phased out in relation to foreigners seeking safe haven in Britain and replaced with “sanctuary”, a new report said today.
A poll for the Independent Asylum Commission found that only 28% of people viewed “asylum” positively, and 33% viewed it negatively.
‘Asylum’ seekers are being seen in an increasingly bad light in the UK, mainly because of mass immigration and the resulting strain on public services, the tax burden, employment opportunities, language conflicts, isolationist actions of immigrants and other issues which are well documented in studies on the effects of mass immigration on nations and their peoples.
Stopping immigration is out of the question for our collectivist masters. The goal of mass immigration is the breaking of cultural and social identity of the sovereign nation, making it easier to facilitate the legal and political takeover of the country by foreign interests.
The next best thing, to try and manipulate public perception, is simply to change its description of it to something more ‘acceptable’. This is the exact same methodology used to reinvent eugenics as transhumanism and is used consistently throughout politics. Unfortunately it keeps working.
In comparison, more than 81% thought “sanctuary” had positive connotations. Slightly more people – 31.3% – most associated the word “asylum” with a place for the mentally ill rather than with safety for the persecuted, the poll said.
Ahead of the launch of the report today, a spokesman said there was “grave misunderstanding” among the public which threatened to undermine Britain’s long tradition of offering help to those fleeing persecution.
The definition of ‘fleeing persecution’ is almost completely irrelevant in this context. By definition, fleeing persecution means you must ask for asylum in the first stable country you enter. You may claim to be ‘fleeing persecution’ from Somalia, but you can’t possibly still be fleeing it while in France, or Spain, or Italy or any other country one must pass through to arrive at Calais.
Remember Britain is an island.
Put simply, they want to reinvent the term to present a more ‘positive’ image of it. Nothing in reality changes however. Just the perception.
Ifath Nawaz, president of the Association of Muslim Lawyers and co-chair of the Independent Asylum Commission, said: “The public have to understand and support sanctuary and the system that provides it for those fleeing persecution.
“And that is why the commission is calling for a campaign to win hearts and minds and ensure we have a system that is in line with the values of the mainstream British public.”
I will be dealing with Islam on a separate site soon enough, but note the language here. The public HAVE TO understand. What they mean is the public must be forced to accept anyone claiming persecution.
Co-chair and former High Court judge Sir John Waite said: “Unless we take action to restore public support and confidence, the outlook for the UK’s tradition of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution is bleak.
“The public overwhelmingly supports the idea that we provide sanctuary to those who need it and they are on the whole proud of our history as a safe haven – but there is a profound disconnection in the public mind between the sanctuary they want the UK to provide and their perception of asylum seekers and the asylum system.”
The survey of 1,000 people aged over 17 was conducted by Efeedback Research.
This is more than a perception, that is a reality. The immigration/ asylum system of Britain is wide open to abuse, and is manipulated by many claiming persecution and actively encouraged by our socialist government in the hopes of destroying national identity. Still, there is no serious discussion about the effects of the vast number of immigrants arriving or at what point the government must start putting the rights and desires of the British people first, instead claiming that millions of affordable (taxpayer funded) homes that are occupied by immigrants, predominantly on (taxpayer funded) benefits has little effect on the country. Another example of using different wording to simply avoid an issue.
This article is only interested in obfuscating an issue with the hope of continuing the same old policy.
Also note that any talk of immigration by the government revolves around immigrants from outside the EU.
Technically, under the The Amsterdam Treaty 1997, all EU countries must accept an open border policy to all citizens of the EU. ‘Free movement of goods and people’. (One can become a citizen of the EU via any EU member state, so tightening the policy for out-of-EU migrants will makes almost zero difference). Another reason to vote for any party talking about leaving the EU.
I have been informed that Camden Council, of London has a Somali language session, from 9.30am to 12.30 on Wednesdays. Here is the booklet advertising this. (Page 5). Would go some way to explain the huge number of Muslim Somalis in the area.