Free housing for asylum seekers from EU
Seriously. That's the Mail website and not a spoof. I would say it's difficult to know where to start taking the filth to pieces, but it's not. You can start with the title. You can't have asylum seekers from the EU, because there are no repressive regimes to seek asylum from in the EU. The people involved are EU citizens who were already granted asylum by the Dutch government, and therefore no longer seeking asylum and not asylum seekers. Actual asylum seekers in the EU are not granted free movement, so wouldn't be affected by the ruling. The headline is nothing but a big, fat lie.
Look at the picture on the right. Ooh, scary. Black people. The majority of the people this ruling affects are white people of European descent. Why does the Mail have a picture of black people to illustrate it? Because they're racist fucknuts and they want to scare their racist fucknut readers with pictures of black people, that's why. Black people wearing hoodies, no less. The caption is good, too: "Ruling: Asylum seekers from the EU could travel here and demand a home" No they can't. Only EU citizens can. And they won't get 'a home', they'll get temporary accomodation until they're deported. Plus, the judge has stated that this is a special case.
The invitation to comment says "Has the Government gone soft on asylum? Tell us below in reader comments". What has this got to do with the Government's rules on asylum? These people aren't seeking asylum. They already got it.
"Around 500,000 refugees are thought to have been granted nationality by our EU neighbours over the past decade. They then assume the rights of a person born in that country."What would you prefer then? A class of untermenschen who have different rights than people born in the country? And they don't 'assume the rights...' they become a citizen. What relevance is it that they weren't born in the country? Especially as if they've been granted asylum, they are by definition genuine. If there's anything that reveals the Mail's prejudices, it's this.
If you think nobody would be misled by this arsery, think again. From the comments:
"What is happening to our country. We would not get the same priveliges in other EU countries, free housing and hand outs - can't this goverment see that we will not be able to support the amount of asylum seekers? And if they are truely asylum seekers why are they crossing so many countries to get to England and the question is how are they doing it?They're not seeking asylum here, you fucking Benny. They've already got it somewhere else.
- Christabel Showering, bristol"
"Whilst I feel sorry for these poor asylum seekers, I really don't feel that they should be put ahead of people who have probably been on the housing list for a long time and who will be put further back on that list to accomodate these people, some sort of temporary housing should be found for them and let them wait their turn for permanent accommodation, also proving first that they are an asset to the community and wont just live off social security.They're not being given permanent residence. They are being given temporary housing, before they get kicked out of the country. They don't even get a turn for permanent accommodation.
- Hg, Cyprus"
I shouldn't be harsh to these people really. What the Daily Mail does is mislead it's readers. It does it on purpose, and it does it quite well. I wish they weren't so good at it.
The thing is, the Mail uses the term 'Asylum Seekers' so they can appear to be not racist. In using a term that describes someone's actions rather than what they are, they can claim this. But by calling people asylum seekers after they've been granted asylum, they show that the term really doesn't describe their actions. It describes what they are. It's clever and weaselly, but it's still racist.
At the moment, the comments system is off for this article, but not for elsewhere on the site. Whether or not it's because they've provoked a deluge of the racist filth I think they might have been trying to provoke, or whether it's because people are pointing out how unremittingly evil and shite this article is is anyone's guess. I'm going for the former.