Westminster blasted over rights of asylum seekers First minister angry at ‘heavy handed, early-morning’ raids to remove familiesBy Rachelle Money ALEX SALMOND has blasted the home secretary on the UK's asylum policy, accusing the government of trampling on asylum seekers' rights by raiding families at dawn and locking them up in Dungavel detention centre.
The Sunday Herald has obtained letters between Scottish ministers and Westminster over asylum issues under the Freedom of Information Act. MSP Fiona Hyslop, secretary for education and lifelong learning, had been in correspondence with MP Liam Byrne, minister of state, about the treatment of failed asylum seekers.
In one letter dated May 20, she asks Byrne to clarify his position on why some families had been refused leave to remain in this country.
"Our understanding was that only those families involved in criminality or fraud would be refused leave, but it appears that some have been refused simply for having failed to report to the Home Office. To many this will not be recognisable as either criminality or fraud."
On June 6, Byrne replied saying that families "in the main ... do not fulfil the criteria that would allow the UK Border Agency to permit a grant. This will include families who have not abided by the laws of the UK by absconding and failing to report as required."
Byrne said that if a family did not return to their home country voluntarily, "enforced removal will be considered as a last resort".
The first minister wrote a strongly worded letter to Jacqui Smith on June 24 saying he was "deeply concerned" about families who have been refused leave to remain. He wrote: "A decision that they do not have a legitimate claim for asylum in the UK combined with their understandable reluctance to leave voluntarily should not allow us to trample on their rights as individuals."
A furious Salmond said it is "with increasing anger" that he had learned of families being raided at dawn and forcibly removed from their homes and "locked up in Dungavel".
The Sunday Herald reported in May that early-morning raids had returned to Scotland despite the Scottish government's clear opposition to the practice. Zodwa Mbali, a South African single mother, said eight immigration officers dragged her and her six-year-old son from her home in Drumchapel, Glasgow, and took them to Yarl's Wood detention centre near Bedford. Bridget O'Koro from Nigeria and her three-year-old daughter Osa were also taken by immigration officers to Yarl's Wood.
Salmond said he had "a number of concerns about how recent enforced removals have taken place".
Reports of between eight and 10 officers being used to detain single mothers struck him as "heavy handed". He has asked for Smith to explain why home detentions are only carried out in the mornings. "Surely it is possible to pick up a single mother and pre-school child at other times," he said.
An SNP insider told the Sunday Herald the party was becoming "increasingly concerned" by the recent actions of the Home Office in resuming dawn raids and detaining children in Dungavel.
"The Scottish government feels like they have made some progress in this area and we are very concerned about lapsing back into the old bad habits."
Patrick Harvie, Green MSP, said Salmond's critics will accuse him of "playing party politics" with the asylum issue. "They'll say he's kicking up a fuss and trying to pick a fight, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for the First Minister to seek the UK government on these matters.
"There should be nothing like Dungavel in this country and I think the letter is encouraging as it shows this government is willing to pursue the Home Office on this issue."
John Wilkes, chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council, said it was "deeply concerned" by the detention and removal of children.
"It is hard to believe this exists in a 21st-century Scotland. We have condemned it, as have the Scottish government and Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People.
"The UK government has signed up to protect the rights of children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but shamefully except for children in the asylum and immigration system."
Wilkes said the SRC is in discussions with the Scottish government and UK Border Agency over alternatives to detention, but as yet nothing has been drawn up or confirmed.
A Home Office spokeswoman confirmed it had received the letter and that a response would be written to the first minister in due course.
|
|
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 11:47pm Sat 12 Jul 08
The SNP are in a tricky position here, they always opposed dawn raids and the locking up of children in opposition, so they have got to maintain that stance in Government. But if they do it publicly they will be accused of using asylum seekers as political human shields to ''stir up'' trouble with Westminster.
I am not remotely surprised that these exchange of letters have taken place, as I have no doubt that both Alex Salmond and Fiona Hyslop are decent people who find dawn raids on Scottish soil unacceptable, but I am not so sure that publicising it is such a good idea, as it shouldn't turn into a political football, it's too serious for that.
And I think we should also bear in mind that the number of families concerned is very small, it should be possible to manage the situation in a more humane way.
The SNP are in a tricky position here, they always opposed dawn raids and the locking up of children in opposition, so they have got to maintain that stance in Government. But if they do it publicly they will be accused of using asylum seekers as political human shields to ''stir up'' trouble with Westminster.
I am not remotely surprised that these exchange of letters have taken place, as I have no doubt that both Alex Salmond and Fiona Hyslop are decent people who find dawn raids on Scottish soil unacceptable, but I am not so sure that publicising it is such a good idea, as it shouldn't turn into a political football, it's too serious for that.
And I think we should also bear in mind that the number of families concerned is very small, it should be possible to manage the situation in a more humane way.
Posted by: BLOCKEM, Glasgow on 2:09am Sun 13 Jul 08
First of all, let’s dispel some of the lies and rhetoric with regard to the way failed asylum seekers are collected for legal and rightful deportation.
[quote]raiding families at dawn / raided at dawn and forcibly removed from their homes / early-morning raids.[/quote]
There is no such happening as a ‘dawn raid’. The failed asylum seekers have had their claims to stay in Britain heard and rejected. Our immigration officers are merely turning up at the accommodation (ours) of the failed asylum seekers to carry out the law - to legally deport the legally failed asylum seekers.
[quote]locking them up in Dungavel detention centre / locked up in Dungavel.[/quote]
Dungavel is a holding centre to accommodate legally failed asylum seekers whilst they are awaiting legal deportation to their countries of origin.
[quote]Zodwa Mbali, a South African single mother, said eight immigration officers dragged her and her six-year-old son from her home in Drumchapel, Glasgow.[/quote]
A lie. Immigration officers did not ‘‘drag her and her six-year-old son from her home’’ - they were collected for legal deportation.
[quote]Our understanding was that only those families involved in criminality or fraud would be refused leave[/quote]
Wrong understanding. The asylum seekers came to Britain claiming they were fleeing rape, murder, torture, discrimination etc., etc., and a decision reached that they have no right (or ever had) to stay in Britain. Their claims are bogus - that is why they are being refused leave to remain.
[quote]it appears that some have been refused simply for having failed to report to the Home Office.[/quote]
Quote from a communication from the then Immigration Department:- ‘‘in a recent experiment approximately 40 families we invited to present themselves for deportation but of these, approximately 39 then disappeared and have not been seen since.’’
These asylum seekers have arrived in Britain (through how many safe countries?) and have been given safe refuge. They have stayed and lived off the British taxpayer for 4/5/6/7 years. They have had their claims to stay heard and a legal decision taken that they have no right to be here. Remove them by whatever means necessary.
First of all, let’s dispel some of the lies and rhetoric with regard to the way failed asylum seekers are collected for legal and rightful deportation.
raiding families at dawn / raided at dawn and forcibly removed from their homes / early-morning raids.
There is no such happening as a ‘dawn raid’. The failed asylum seekers have had their claims to stay in Britain heard and rejected. Our immigration officers are merely turning up at the accommodation (ours) of the failed asylum seekers to carry out the law - to legally deport the legally failed asylum seekers.
locking them up in Dungavel detention centre / locked up in Dungavel.
Dungavel is a holding centre to accommodate legally failed asylum seekers whilst they are awaiting legal deportation to their countries of origin.
Zodwa Mbali, a South African single mother, said eight immigration officers dragged her and her six-year-old son from her home in Drumchapel, Glasgow.
A lie. Immigration officers did not ‘‘drag her and her six-year-old son from her home’’ - they were collected for legal deportation.
Our understanding was that only those families involved in criminality or fraud would be refused leave
Wrong understanding. The asylum seekers came to Britain claiming they were fleeing rape, murder, torture, discrimination etc., etc., and a decision reached that they have no right (or ever had) to stay in Britain. Their claims are bogus - that is why they are being refused leave to remain.
it appears that some have been refused simply for having failed to report to the Home Office.
Quote from a communication from the then Immigration Department:- ‘‘in a recent experiment approximately 40 families we invited to present themselves for deportation but of these, approximately 39 then disappeared and have not been seen since.’’
These asylum seekers have arrived in Britain (through how many safe countries?) and have been given safe refuge. They have stayed and lived off the British taxpayer for 4/5/6/7 years. They have had their claims to stay heard and a legal decision taken that they have no right to be here. Remove them by whatever means necessary.
Posted by: bigman on 2:56am Sun 13 Jul 08
BLOCKEM, you are only interested in one issue , you seem to spend all your time commenting on asylum seeker stories in various newspapers. It is sad and depressing that you would choose to hound those less fortunate than yourself. Go get a life.
BLOCKEM, you are only interested in one issue , you seem to spend all your time commenting on asylum seeker stories in various newspapers. It is sad and depressing that you would choose to hound those less fortunate than yourself. Go get a life.
Posted by: it's me on 7:49am Sun 13 Jul 08
Blockem is correct. How many safe countries do these people pass through before reaching the UK? Refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country. We should therefore should only have refugees from Ireland, Norway France etc. Why do they come to the UK? Welfare state.
Blockem is correct. How many safe countries do these people pass through before reaching the UK? Refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country. We should therefore should only have refugees from Ireland, Norway France etc. Why do they come to the UK? Welfare state.
Posted by: moral high ground, Glasgow on 8:39am Sun 13 Jul 08
Politicians constantly say they listen to the people .......well listen... IF THE IMMIGRANTS HAS NO RIGHT TO BE HERE GET THEM OUT.. DO YOU HEAR THAT GET THEM OUT ...IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAY SUPPORT THEM AND ASSIST THEM TO SETTLE BUT GET RID OF THE CRIME GANGS WHORES THIEVES CHILD SEX OFFENDERS BOMBERS ET AL . Churchill must have turned over quite a few times recently . Oh and if this comment is classed as racist by some readers you are part of the problem .
Politicians constantly say they listen to the people .......well listen... IF THE IMMIGRANTS HAS NO RIGHT TO BE HERE GET THEM OUT.. DO YOU HEAR THAT GET THEM OUT ...IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAY SUPPORT THEM AND ASSIST THEM TO SETTLE BUT GET RID OF THE CRIME GANGS WHORES THIEVES CHILD SEX OFFENDERS BOMBERS ET AL . Churchill must have turned over quite a few times recently . Oh and if this comment is classed as racist by some readers you are part of the problem .
Posted by: heady on 9:34am Sun 13 Jul 08
[quote][bold]moral high ground[/bold] wrote:
Politicians constantly say they listen to the people .......well listen... IF THE IMMIGRANTS HAS NO RIGHT TO BE HERE GET THEM OUT.. DO YOU HEAR THAT GET THEM OUT ...IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAY SUPPORT THEM AND ASSIST THEM TO SETTLE BUT GET RID OF THE CRIME GANGS WHORES THIEVES CHILD SEX OFFENDERS BOMBERS ET AL . Churchill must have turned over quite a few times recently . Oh and if this comment is classed as racist by some readers you are part of the problem . [/quote] I am indeed part of the problem for lowlifes like you, BLOCKEM and Wullie/Wilhelm. You are racists and you clearly know it; in fact you are so vile you belong in nulabor.
moral high ground wrote:
Politicians constantly say they listen to the people .......well listen... IF THE IMMIGRANTS HAS NO RIGHT TO BE HERE GET THEM OUT.. DO YOU HEAR THAT GET THEM OUT ...IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAY SUPPORT THEM AND ASSIST THEM TO SETTLE BUT GET RID OF THE CRIME GANGS WHORES THIEVES CHILD SEX OFFENDERS BOMBERS ET AL . Churchill must have turned over quite a few times recently . Oh and if this comment is classed as racist by some readers you are part of the problem .
I am indeed part of the problem for lowlifes like you, BLOCKEM and Wullie/Wilhelm. You are racists and you clearly know it; in fact you are so vile you belong in nulabor.
Posted by: Enoch, England on 9:50am Sun 13 Jul 08
[quote][bold]heady[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]moral high ground[/bold] wrote: Politicians constantly say they listen to the people .......well listen... IF THE IMMIGRANTS HAS NO RIGHT TO BE HERE GET THEM OUT.. DO YOU HEAR THAT GET THEM OUT ...IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAY SUPPORT THEM AND ASSIST THEM TO SETTLE BUT GET RID OF THE CRIME GANGS WHORES THIEVES CHILD SEX OFFENDERS BOMBERS ET AL . Churchill must have turned over quite a few times recently . Oh and if this comment is classed as racist by some readers you are part of the problem . [/quote] I am indeed part of the problem for lowlifes like you, BLOCKEM and Wullie/Wilhelm. You are racists and you clearly know it; in fact you are so vile you belong in nulabor.[/quote] I couldn't have put it better myself.
heady wrote:
moral high ground wrote: Politicians constantly say they listen to the people .......well listen... IF THE IMMIGRANTS HAS NO RIGHT TO BE HERE GET THEM OUT.. DO YOU HEAR THAT GET THEM OUT ...IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAY SUPPORT THEM AND ASSIST THEM TO SETTLE BUT GET RID OF THE CRIME GANGS WHORES THIEVES CHILD SEX OFFENDERS BOMBERS ET AL . Churchill must have turned over quite a few times recently . Oh and if this comment is classed as racist by some readers you are part of the problem .
I am indeed part of the problem for lowlifes like you, BLOCKEM and Wullie/Wilhelm. You are racists and you clearly know it; in fact you are so vile you belong in nulabor.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Posted by: phil1, Edinburgh on 11:46am Sun 13 Jul 08
[bold]bold[/bold] Immigration./Migrati
on/Asylum Seekers[bold]bold[/bold]
People come to the UK either legally or illegally because they want a better life which they think they can get in UK and not in their own country. That some lie and cheat to get in and then do everything possible to avoid being thrown out is entirely understandable - because what they get here is better than what they had in their own country.
Most of us if we were honest would do exactly the same thing to get a better life for ourselves and even more so for our families.
So complaining that they should have stopped in France or Spain or Russia or India or China is wishful thinking - they wanted the UK because we are seen across the world as place where refugees (even economic ones) can make a new life. If South Africa can take 3 million refugees from Zimbabwe then I guess UK can take 100,000 'illegal' immigrants every few years.
By all means restrict welfare payments so that immigrants have to earn a living but education and health we can provide a little cost to us but great help to them.
So make appointments to escort failed asylum seekers to the airport and if they deliberately miss them then go and get them as a last resort - Mr Salmond or other neutral people can go along as an observers.
Immigration./Migrati
on/Asylum Seekers
People come to the UK either legally or illegally because they want a better life which they think they can get in UK and not in their own country. That some lie and cheat to get in and then do everything possible to avoid being thrown out is entirely understandable - because what they get here is better than what they had in their own country.
Most of us if we were honest would do exactly the same thing to get a better life for ourselves and even more so for our families.
So complaining that they should have stopped in France or Spain or Russia or India or China is wishful thinking - they wanted the UK because we are seen across the world as place where refugees (even economic ones) can make a new life. If South Africa can take 3 million refugees from Zimbabwe then I guess UK can take 100,000 'illegal' immigrants every few years.
By all means restrict welfare payments so that immigrants have to earn a living but education and health we can provide a little cost to us but great help to them.
So make appointments to escort failed asylum seekers to the airport and if they deliberately miss them then go and get them as a last resort - Mr Salmond or other neutral people can go along as an observers.
Posted by: BLOCKEM, Glasgow on 12:45pm Sun 13 Jul 08
Here’s an example of the harassment our immigration officials have to contend with when they arrive to collect failed asylum seekers for legal deportation.
From the website of tax-funded, Glasgow based ‘‘charity’’, Positive Action in Housing, Executive Director, Ms Robina Quershi proudly boasts of, and openly condones, the actions of asylum supporters who blocked immigration officials from removing failed asylum seekers who have no legal right to be in this country. She continually vilifies the actions of our officials with her lying rhetoric of ‘brutal, humiliating dawn raids,’ ‘dawn raid teams,’ ‘immigration snatch squads,’ ’doors being booted in by metal battering rams and children being dragged out screaming.’
The following is a report from the Positive Action in Housing website:-
‘‘The Hazizi family who were detained on Saturday while reporting in Glasgow are due to be put on a Home Office charter flight to Albania and Kosovo on Thursday at 9am.’’
Positive Action in Housing then requests the public to assist in stopping the deportation of the Hazizi family by asking the public to ‘‘Phone Stansted Airport on 0870 000 0303 to tell them about the case and ask them to cancel the flight’’.
Here’s our Home Office’s statement on failed asylum seekers who are about to be deported by air.
“Many asylum seekers throw tantrums or become aggressive when they are to be deported in a bid to sabotage their removal by convincing air crews to have them taken off flights because they pose a danger once the flight is airborne.’’
Following comments are from an article which is currently being displayed on the PAiH website of the methods used by asylum supporters to harass our immigration officers from carrying out our laws.:-
‘‘Sixty-seven-year-o
ld ****** ********* flashes a mischievous smile as she describes the tactics she and her neighbours used every day to thwart immigration officers trying to arrest asylum seekers on her estate in Glasgow.’’
‘‘She got together with her friend ******** and organised the residents into daily dawn patrols, looking out for immigration vans. When the vans arrived, a phone system would swing in to action, warning asylum seekers to escape.’’
‘‘The whole estate pitched in, gathering in large crowds in the early-morning dark to jeer at immigration officials as they entered the tower blocks. On more than one occasion, the vans left the estate empty - the people they had come for had got out in time and were hidden by the crowd.’’
‘‘We had our own little code to warn them it was a dawn raid and to get out. There’s more than one way of getting out of the flats - there’s two staircases and two lifts, so you could play games if you knew how. If we were a thorn in their flesh, then good.’’
The persons carrying out the deliberate harassment of our immigration officers and deliberately assisting and arranging the concealment of failed asylum seekers are breaking our laws - they should be arrested.
Here’s an example of the harassment our immigration officials have to contend with when they arrive to collect failed asylum seekers for legal deportation.
From the website of tax-funded, Glasgow based ‘‘charity’’, Positive Action in Housing, Executive Director, Ms Robina Quershi proudly boasts of, and openly condones, the actions of asylum supporters who blocked immigration officials from removing failed asylum seekers who have no legal right to be in this country. She continually vilifies the actions of our officials with her lying rhetoric of ‘brutal, humiliating dawn raids,’ ‘dawn raid teams,’ ‘immigration snatch squads,’ ’doors being booted in by metal battering rams and children being dragged out screaming.’
The following is a report from the Positive Action in Housing website:-
‘‘The Hazizi family who were detained on Saturday while reporting in Glasgow are due to be put on a Home Office charter flight to Albania and Kosovo on Thursday at 9am.’’
Positive Action in Housing then requests the public to assist in stopping the deportation of the Hazizi family by asking the public to ‘‘Phone Stansted Airport on 0870 000 0303 to tell them about the case and ask them to cancel the flight’’.
Here’s our Home Office’s statement on failed asylum seekers who are about to be deported by air.
“Many asylum seekers throw tantrums or become aggressive when they are to be deported in a bid to sabotage their removal by convincing air crews to have them taken off flights because they pose a danger once the flight is airborne.’’
Following comments are from an article which is currently being displayed on the PAiH website of the methods used by asylum supporters to harass our immigration officers from carrying out our laws.:-
‘‘Sixty-seven-year-o
ld ****** ********* flashes a mischievous smile as she describes the tactics she and her neighbours used every day to thwart immigration officers trying to arrest asylum seekers on her estate in Glasgow.’’
‘‘She got together with her friend ******** and organised the residents into daily dawn patrols, looking out for immigration vans. When the vans arrived, a phone system would swing in to action, warning asylum seekers to escape.’’
‘‘The whole estate pitched in, gathering in large crowds in the early-morning dark to jeer at immigration officials as they entered the tower blocks. On more than one occasion, the vans left the estate empty - the people they had come for had got out in time and were hidden by the crowd.’’
‘‘We had our own little code to warn them it was a dawn raid and to get out. There’s more than one way of getting out of the flats - there’s two staircases and two lifts, so you could play games if you knew how. If we were a thorn in their flesh, then good.’’
The persons carrying out the deliberate harassment of our immigration officers and deliberately assisting and arranging the concealment of failed asylum seekers are breaking our laws - they should be arrested.
Posted by: Mike Ellis (NSCFC), Devon on 3:15pm Sun 13 Jul 08
The charity National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) warns Home Secretary Jacqui Smith about knife crime
The charity National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) warns that until such time as the government brings about reform and parity in family law, the like of which at present excludes wholesome fathers, grandparents and all on the paternal side of a child’s life after separation or divorce at an alarming rate and affecting in excess of 600.000 children, fathers and well over One million grandparents all since Labour took office in 1997, then its for sure that many seeking a sense of identity and belonging will turn to gangs and so will continue the never ending rise in anti-social behaviour. Add to this the mindless creation of a nanny state via the NSPCC & Social Services at the expense of parental responsibility rights and we have the complete recipe for disaster and with it still more out of control behaviour the like of which is manifesting itself in knife and sex crime with increasing numbers of youngsters suffering from mental illness. Address the cause and just maybe we can begin to replace gangs with good wholesome role models via the family unit, to ignore a child’s innate need to belong and be loved is to reap what we sow.
National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) is a registered charity which believes that continuing contact with a child’s parents or extended family after separation or divorce is vital for the child’s balanced development and it works tirelessly to foster those all-important family contacts. As such we offer free support and advice to all those in need. Helpline at National rate on 0870 794 0075 or at www.nscfc.com
The charity National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) warns Home Secretary Jacqui Smith about knife crime
The charity National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) warns that until such time as the government brings about reform and parity in family law, the like of which at present excludes wholesome fathers, grandparents and all on the paternal side of a child’s life after separation or divorce at an alarming rate and affecting in excess of 600.000 children, fathers and well over One million grandparents all since Labour took office in 1997, then its for sure that many seeking a sense of identity and belonging will turn to gangs and so will continue the never ending rise in anti-social behaviour. Add to this the mindless creation of a nanny state via the NSPCC & Social Services at the expense of parental responsibility rights and we have the complete recipe for disaster and with it still more out of control behaviour the like of which is manifesting itself in knife and sex crime with increasing numbers of youngsters suffering from mental illness. Address the cause and just maybe we can begin to replace gangs with good wholesome role models via the family unit, to ignore a child’s innate need to belong and be loved is to reap what we sow.
National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) is a registered charity which believes that continuing contact with a child’s parents or extended family after separation or divorce is vital for the child’s balanced development and it works tirelessly to foster those all-important family contacts. As such we offer free support and advice to all those in need. Helpline at National rate on 0870 794 0075 or at www.nscfc.com
Posted by: BLOCKEM, Glasgow on 6:21pm Sun 13 Jul 08
[quote][bold]phil1[/bold] wrote:-People come to the UK either legally or illegally because they want a better life which they think they can get in UK and not in their own country. That some lie and cheat to get in and then do everything possible to avoid being thrown out is entirely understandable - because what they get here is better than what they had in their own country.
Most of us if we were honest would do exactly the same thing to get a better life for ourselves and even more so for our families.
So complaining that they should have stopped in France or Spain or Russia or India or China is wishful thinking - they wanted the UK because we are seen across the world as place where refugees (even economic ones) can make a new life. If South Africa can take 3 million refugees from Zimbabwe then I guess UK can take 100,000 'illegal' immigrants every few years.
By all means restrict welfare payments so that immigrants have to earn a living but education and health we can provide a little cost to us but great help to them.
So make appointments to escort failed asylum seekers to the airport and if they deliberately miss them then go and get them as a last resort - Mr Salmond or other neutral people can go along as an observers.[/quote]
The above must be one of the most often used stupid comments by those wishing to justify bogus, lying asylum seekers.
[quote]That some lie and cheat to get in and then do everything possible to avoid being thrown out is entirely understandable - because what they get here is better than what they had in their own country.[/quote]
So you are of the opinion that it is quite moral for asylum seekers to deliberately adopt false names, fake passports or destroy their own passports, lie about their pasts and their reasons for leaving their own countries and present themselves in Britain for the purpose of swindling the British taxpayer and depriving the indigenous population out of much needed finance. They continue to deliberately falsely claim (theft by fraud) benefits from us for years and when they are rumbled, they lie to stay here and use our legal system, paid for by the British taxpayer, to keep them here.
That they should have stopped in France or Spain or Russia or India or China should not be down to ‘‘wishful thinking’’ - our immigration officials should have used the‘‘ first safe country’’ rule of thumb and turned the bogus asylum seekers back before they could begin their plan of robbery. And ... wrong, the UK can’t continue to take 100,000 'illegal' immigrants every few years. The UK already has an estimated 280,00 - 400,00 failed asylum seekers (illegal immigrants) who have absconded and are ‘‘floating’’ about the country or refusing to vacate their (our) free to them accommodation. We don’t know how many millions? of illegal immigrants are in Britain.
[quote]but education and health we can provide a little cost to us but great help to them.[/quote]
At little cost to us. Are you off your nut? Our NHS and education systems are deteriorating to the extent that our own people (yours?) cannot receive the necessary treatment. Cancer sufferers are being denied life prolonging drugs due to lack of finance. The education of our own (yours?) children is being impeded due to the fact that the foreign kids cannot speak, read or write English and that is detrimental to the teaching of our own kids. Whilst extra time is being spent on the foreigners, our own kids are sitting learning nothing - they are being deprived of teaching time.
[quote]So make appointments to escort failed asylum seekers to the airport and if they deliberately miss them then go and get them as a last resort[/quote]
How stupid, the vast majority of failed asylum seekers do not turn up for their legal deportations - they are illegally assisted by the asylum support lawbreakers to go underground. The asylum seekers then become illegal immigrants ie, criminals. Time for our police to arrest those who deliberately harass and obstruct our immigration officers from carrying out the legal decisions of our law courts. Time for our Home Office to protect their employees, immigration officers, from the rowdy law-breaking asylum supporters.
phil1 wrote:-People come to the UK either legally or illegally because they want a better life which they think they can get in UK and not in their own country. That some lie and cheat to get in and then do everything possible to avoid being thrown out is entirely understandable - because what they get here is better than what they had in their own country.
Most of us if we were honest would do exactly the same thing to get a better life for ourselves and even more so for our families.
So complaining that they should have stopped in France or Spain or Russia or India or China is wishful thinking - they wanted the UK because we are seen across the world as place where refugees (even economic ones) can make a new life. If South Africa can take 3 million refugees from Zimbabwe then I guess UK can take 100,000 'illegal' immigrants every few years.
By all means restrict welfare payments so that immigrants have to earn a living but education and health we can provide a little cost to us but great help to them.
So make appointments to escort failed asylum seekers to the airport and if they deliberately miss them then go and get them as a last resort - Mr Salmond or other neutral people can go along as an observers.
The above must be one of the most often used stupid comments by those wishing to justify bogus, lying asylum seekers.
That some lie and cheat to get in and then do everything possible to avoid being thrown out is entirely understandable - because what they get here is better than what they had in their own country.
So you are of the opinion that it is quite moral for asylum seekers to deliberately adopt false names, fake passports or destroy their own passports, lie about their pasts and their reasons for leaving their own countries and present themselves in Britain for the purpose of swindling the British taxpayer and depriving the indigenous population out of much needed finance. They continue to deliberately falsely claim (theft by fraud) benefits from us for years and when they are rumbled, they lie to stay here and use our legal system, paid for by the British taxpayer, to keep them here.
That they should have stopped in France or Spain or Russia or India or China should not be down to ‘‘wishful thinking’’ - our immigration officials should have used the‘‘ first safe country’’ rule of thumb and turned the bogus asylum seekers back before they could begin their plan of robbery. And ... wrong, the UK can’t continue to take 100,000 'illegal' immigrants every few years. The UK already has an estimated 280,00 - 400,00 failed asylum seekers (illegal immigrants) who have absconded and are ‘‘floating’’ about the country or refusing to vacate their (our) free to them accommodation. We don’t know how many millions? of illegal immigrants are in Britain.
but education and health we can provide a little cost to us but great help to them.
At little cost to us. Are you off your nut? Our NHS and education systems are deteriorating to the extent that our own people (yours?) cannot receive the necessary treatment. Cancer sufferers are being denied life prolonging drugs due to lack of finance. The education of our own (yours?) children is being impeded due to the fact that the foreign kids cannot speak, read or write English and that is detrimental to the teaching of our own kids. Whilst extra time is being spent on the foreigners, our own kids are sitting learning nothing - they are being deprived of teaching time.
So make appointments to escort failed asylum seekers to the airport and if they deliberately miss them then go and get them as a last resort
How stupid, the vast majority of failed asylum seekers do not turn up for their legal deportations - they are illegally assisted by the asylum support lawbreakers to go underground. The asylum seekers then become illegal immigrants ie, criminals. Time for our police to arrest those who deliberately harass and obstruct our immigration officers from carrying out the legal decisions of our law courts. Time for our Home Office to protect their employees, immigration officers, from the rowdy law-breaking asylum supporters.
Posted by: Glaswegian on 6:49pm Sun 13 Jul 08
To make the argument that refugees should only be accepted by their closest neighbour is rubbish, that would mean that we as an Island wouldn't need to accept refugees from anywhere, and countries in Africa, the middle east, and other poor regions would have the bear the entire weight of the refugee crisis.
It might be moral for refugees to use false names and addresses if it saves family members from persecution at home.
Scotland has a falling birthrate everyone knows that so there would not be much harm done in accepting a few more refugees. Unlike the Poles they will not go home again.
Your last point about dawn raids is rubbish if they didn't know where they were they couldn't do the dawn raids could they ?
To make the argument that refugees should only be accepted by their closest neighbour is rubbish, that would mean that we as an Island wouldn't need to accept refugees from anywhere, and countries in Africa, the middle east, and other poor regions would have the bear the entire weight of the refugee crisis.
It might be moral for refugees to use false names and addresses if it saves family members from persecution at home.
Scotland has a falling birthrate everyone knows that so there would not be much harm done in accepting a few more refugees. Unlike the Poles they will not go home again.
Your last point about dawn raids is rubbish if they didn't know where they were they couldn't do the dawn raids could they ?
Posted by: The radical Apathist on 8:12pm Sun 13 Jul 08
The vast majority of Scots are sick to the teeth of being taken for a ride by these asylum seekers-not wanted and not needed in our overcrowded little island-. Get them out ASAP -the numbers here illegally are staggering and will be the pretext for introducing ID cards.
This country is going down the toilet and Enoch Powell was right -unfettered immigration will become a huge issue when the recession starts to bite and unemployment rises.
If you increasingly populate the place with people from the third world you will eventually end up with a third world country which is what our political masters would appear to wish.
The vast majority of Scots are sick to the teeth of being taken for a ride by these asylum seekers-not wanted and not needed in our overcrowded little island-. Get them out ASAP -the numbers here illegally are staggering and will be the pretext for introducing ID cards.
This country is going down the toilet and Enoch Powell was right -unfettered immigration will become a huge issue when the recession starts to bite and unemployment rises.
If you increasingly populate the place with people from the third world you will eventually end up with a third world country which is what our political masters would appear to wish.
Posted by: Random Thoughts on 8:32pm Sun 13 Jul 08
I may have missed something but isn't it the case that asylum seekers are subject to an assessment then an appeal before a decision is made? If the decision goes against them they are then asked to leave the country.
What is the problem with that?
Where is the issue?
Isn't that what happens in The USA, Australia and most other countries?
Time to stop messing about on this issue. If an authorised person is going about their lawful duty then anyone attempting to stop them should be arrested — that is a serious offence.
Positive action on housing should in no way be getting public money - and if they continue to pervert justice they should be closed down as you would any other organisation that encouraged public disorder and large scale law breaking.
Have I missed the point in all this somewhere?
I may have missed something but isn't it the case that asylum seekers are subject to an assessment then an appeal before a decision is made? If the decision goes against them they are then asked to leave the country.
What is the problem with that?
Where is the issue?
Isn't that what happens in The USA, Australia and most other countries?
Time to stop messing about on this issue. If an authorised person is going about their lawful duty then anyone attempting to stop them should be arrested — that is a serious offence.
Positive action on housing should in no way be getting public money - and if they continue to pervert justice they should be closed down as you would any other organisation that encouraged public disorder and large scale law breaking.
Have I missed the point in all this somewhere?
Posted by: Glaswegian on 8:41pm Sun 13 Jul 08
Scotland is not an overcrowded country so that's rubbish for a start. Enoch Powell ? He was a right wing looney who talked so much rubbish he was even thrown out of the Tories. From what I have read it is the people who live with the asylum seekers who form the human chains to stop the dawn raids. It is their neighbours and friends. I would rather take their word for it than a people who quote Enoch Powell or think we should run things like the Americans.
I don't support the SNP but I think they are right about this.
Scotland is not an overcrowded country so that's rubbish for a start. Enoch Powell ? He was a right wing looney who talked so much rubbish he was even thrown out of the Tories. From what I have read it is the people who live with the asylum seekers who form the human chains to stop the dawn raids. It is their neighbours and friends. I would rather take their word for it than a people who quote Enoch Powell or think we should run things like the Americans.
I don't support the SNP but I think they are right about this.
Posted by: BLOCKEM, Glasgow on 9:08pm Sun 13 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Glaswegian[/bold] posted,
To make the argument that refugees should only be accepted by their closest neighbour is rubbish, that would mean that we as an Island wouldn't need to accept refugees from anywhere, and countries in Africa, the middle east, and other poor regions would have the bear the entire weight of the refugee crisis.
It might be moral for refugees to use false names and addresses if it saves family members from persecution at home.
Scotland has a falling birthrate everyone knows that so there would not be much harm done in accepting a few more refugees. Unlike the Poles they will not go home again.
Your last point about dawn raids is rubbish if they didn't know where they were they couldn't do the dawn raids could they ?[/quote]
European countries are the nearest safe countries for a great many of these so-called refugees. Are you seriously attempting to make a point that Britain has no other countries round us? Also, most of these so-called refugees are bogus - so the they should not be allowed entry into another country
Refugees do not use false names to protect relatives at home - they use false identities et al in an attempt to con our Home Office into allowing them entry to Britain.
The falling birthrate story was an attempt to mislead us by the then First Minister, Jack McConnell who realized that he had fouled-up big time with regard to the influx of asylum seekers to Scotland. In addition to this, the arrival of migrants from the Eastern countries will more than compensate for the so-called ‘‘falling birthrate’’.
‘‘a few more refugees’’ How many make a few?
Your point about dawn raids is rubbish. The immigration officers do know where they are, problem is, when the immigration officers arrive to collect them, the failed asylum seekers have absconded. Didn’t you read or understand the communication from the Home Office? Here it is again:- ‘‘in a recent experiment approximately 40 families we invited to present themselves for deportation but of these, approximately 39 then disappeared and have not been seen since.’’
Glaswegian posted,
To make the argument that refugees should only be accepted by their closest neighbour is rubbish, that would mean that we as an Island wouldn't need to accept refugees from anywhere, and countries in Africa, the middle east, and other poor regions would have the bear the entire weight of the refugee crisis.
It might be moral for refugees to use false names and addresses if it saves family members from persecution at home.
Scotland has a falling birthrate everyone knows that so there would not be much harm done in accepting a few more refugees. Unlike the Poles they will not go home again.
Your last point about dawn raids is rubbish if they didn't know where they were they couldn't do the dawn raids could they ?
European countries are the nearest safe countries for a great many of these so-called refugees. Are you seriously attempting to make a point that Britain has no other countries round us? Also, most of these so-called refugees are bogus - so the they should not be allowed entry into another country
Refugees do not use false names to protect relatives at home - they use false identities et al in an attempt to con our Home Office into allowing them entry to Britain.
The falling birthrate story was an attempt to mislead us by the then First Minister, Jack McConnell who realized that he had fouled-up big time with regard to the influx of asylum seekers to Scotland. In addition to this, the arrival of migrants from the Eastern countries will more than compensate for the so-called ‘‘falling birthrate’’.
‘‘a few more refugees’’ How many make a few?
Your point about dawn raids is rubbish. The immigration officers do know where they are, problem is, when the immigration officers arrive to collect them, the failed asylum seekers have absconded. Didn’t you read or understand the communication from the Home Office? Here it is again:- ‘‘in a recent experiment approximately 40 families we invited to present themselves for deportation but of these, approximately 39 then disappeared and have not been seen since.’’
Posted by: BLOCKEM, Glasgow on 11:33pm Sun 13 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Random Thoughts[/bold] wrote:-
......... Time to stop messing about on this issue. If an authorised person is going about their lawful duty then anyone attempting to stop them should be arrested — that is a serious offence. Positive action on housing should in no way be getting public money - and if they continue to pervert justice they should be closed down as you would any other organisation that encouraged public disorder and large scale law breaking. ..........
[/quote]
Our immigration officers must be allowed to collect failed asylum seekers for legal and rightful deportation without fear of harassment or insult. The failed asylum seekers must go when told to do so. Alec Salmond must not give the failed asylum seekers the right to stay in Scotland - to do so would be utter madness.
The Positive Action in Housing ‘‘charity’‘ was set up some thirteen years ago to create housing allocation (jumping the queue) for the so called ‘‘ethnic minorities’’. The initial reasons for establishing this charity are now defunct. Any attempts to give ethnic minorities (or anyone else) preferential treatment in housing allocation is discriminating and in this instance may even be racist, against other house seekers. The charity is working at odds with itself. By preventing our immigration officers from removing failed asylum seekers and freeing up much needed accommodation, the charity is creating a farther shortage of housing in Glasgow.
The public funding of Positive Action in Housing must be withdrawn. From the Scottish Executive, PAiH received £227,393 of taxpayers’ money from 2003-2006. They also received £92,677 from Communities Scotland over a similar period. I am unable to find out the up-to-date financial funding for PAiH, perhaps PAiH would supply us through this thread as to how much funding, we the taxpayers, are giving to her ‘‘charity’’. Don’t hold your breath. Also, perhaps Ms Robina Quershi, would inform us of the annual salary and expenses she is awarding herself as Executive Director of PAiH. Again, don’t hold your breath - to allude to the salary / expenses / perks of Ms Qureshi, is to bring about the deletion of the comment.
Ms. Robina Qureshi is undermining and challenging the laws our society. She is a constant heckler of our Government. All a bit ironic when her salary and expense account are paid from the wage packets of the society which she continually castigates. We finance this charity to carry on their hostilities against our society. My view is that her salary etc. is her real agenda for keeping her charity going. This defunct charity should be wound up. Our City Councillors, MSP’s and MP’s can then take action to stop farther immigration to this city and remove those who have no right to be here.
Random Thoughts wrote:-
......... Time to stop messing about on this issue. If an authorised person is going about their lawful duty then anyone attempting to stop them should be arrested — that is a serious offence. Positive action on housing should in no way be getting public money - and if they continue to pervert justice they should be closed down as you would any other organisation that encouraged public disorder and large scale law breaking. ..........
Our immigration officers must be allowed to collect failed asylum seekers for legal and rightful deportation without fear of harassment or insult. The failed asylum seekers must go when told to do so. Alec Salmond must not give the failed asylum seekers the right to stay in Scotland - to do so would be utter madness.
The Positive Action in Housing ‘‘charity’‘ was set up some thirteen years ago to create housing allocation (jumping the queue) for the so called ‘‘ethnic minorities’’. The initial reasons for establishing this charity are now defunct. Any attempts to give ethnic minorities (or anyone else) preferential treatment in housing allocation is discriminating and in this instance may even be racist, against other house seekers. The charity is working at odds with itself. By preventing our immigration officers from removing failed asylum seekers and freeing up much needed accommodation, the charity is creating a farther shortage of housing in Glasgow.
The public funding of Positive Action in Housing must be withdrawn. From the Scottish Executive, PAiH received £227,393 of taxpayers’ money from 2003-2006. They also received £92,677 from Communities Scotland over a similar period. I am unable to find out the up-to-date financial funding for PAiH, perhaps PAiH would supply us through this thread as to how much funding, we the taxpayers, are giving to her ‘‘charity’’. Don’t hold your breath. Also, perhaps Ms Robina Quershi, would inform us of the annual salary and expenses she is awarding herself as Executive Director of PAiH. Again, don’t hold your breath - to allude to the salary / expenses / perks of Ms Qureshi, is to bring about the deletion of the comment.
Ms. Robina Qureshi is undermining and challenging the laws our society. She is a constant heckler of our Government. All a bit ironic when her salary and expense account are paid from the wage packets of the society which she continually castigates. We finance this charity to carry on their hostilities against our society. My view is that her salary etc. is her real agenda for keeping her charity going. This defunct charity should be wound up. Our City Councillors, MSP’s and MP’s can then take action to stop farther immigration to this city and remove those who have no right to be here.
Posted by: BLOCKHEAD, Glasgow on 6:47am Wed 16 Jul 08
BLOCKEM, you seem to devote a considerable, or in my opinion, an abnormal amount of time seeking out newspaper articles on the subject of asylum seekers. One just has to perform a search with your pseudonym BLOCKEM to reveal the number of threads on which you are active, all of which are on the issue of asylum. This gives one quite an insight into your personality, for example, you appear to trawl the newspaper sites for asylum stories which would take up considerable time, which may indicate that you are unemployed. You also comment very late at night that might imply that you are not in a relationship. You also bitterly criticise others who don't agree with your opinion (those of Michael Woods spring to mind) therefore one would imagine that you are anti-social. I do pity you and hope that one day you will put yourself in the shoes of others who are much less fortunate than yourself.
BLOCKEM, you seem to devote a considerable, or in my opinion, an abnormal amount of time seeking out newspaper articles on the subject of asylum seekers. One just has to perform a search with your pseudonym BLOCKEM to reveal the number of threads on which you are active, all of which are on the issue of asylum. This gives one quite an insight into your personality, for example, you appear to trawl the newspaper sites for asylum stories which would take up considerable time, which may indicate that you are unemployed. You also comment very late at night that might imply that you are not in a relationship. You also bitterly criticise others who don't agree with your opinion (those of Michael Woods spring to mind) therefore one would imagine that you are anti-social. I do pity you and hope that one day you will put yourself in the shoes of others who are much less fortunate than yourself.
Posted by: shuck, Glasgow on 10:52am Mon 21 Jul 08
Detention of children is a last resort and is in fact legal.
If the parents of these children you refer to accepted that they have failed in their attempts to gain status in the UK and returned to their own countries then there would be no need to detain anyone.
The fact is that the UK Border Agency have no alternative but to detain those who blatantly refuse to accept the law of this country.
So if anyone disagrees wth children being detained, why don’t you encourage the parents to accept that they should go home when instructed to do so?
The ECHR is being shamelessly abused by bogus asylum seekers and illegals in an attemt to gain status here in the UK.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the UK should provide a safe haven for those [bold]GENUINELY[/bold] seeking asylum.
Detention of children is a last resort and is in fact legal.
If the parents of these children you refer to accepted that they have failed in their attempts to gain status in the UK and returned to their own countries then there would be no need to detain anyone.
The fact is that the UK Border Agency have no alternative but to detain those who blatantly refuse to accept the law of this country.
So if anyone disagrees wth children being detained, why don’t you encourage the parents to accept that they should go home when instructed to do so?
The ECHR is being shamelessly abused by bogus asylum seekers and illegals in an attemt to gain status here in the UK.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the UK should provide a safe haven for those
GENUINELY seeking asylum.
Posted by: Adam, Scotland on 2:48pm Mon 11 Aug 08
"If South Africa can take 3 million refugees from Zimbabwe then I guess UK can take 100,000 'illegal' immigrants every few years."
^^ The Zimbabweans crossing into South Africa are genuinly fleeing the torture and persecution committed by Mugabe's regime. They are genuine asylum seekers.
The problem is that many people coming into the UK (and Western Europe) are not genuine asylum seekers at all. They are economic migrants posing as asylum seekers ( more than 8 out of 10 asylum applications are found to be false ). Whenever a bogus asylum seeker manages to claim asylum in the UK, he/she is taking the place of someone who is truly in need. That's the real tragedy; the system is being so badly abused, that the most vulnerable people are not getting the proper attention and help they need.
Britain has not had this level of inward migration in literally a thousand years. It is going to cause social problems. We should be accepting skilled immigrants and genuine asylum seekers. That would be fair. Instead, we continue to import unending, unprecedented masses of economic migrants from every corner of the globe.
Who's getting rich from this mess? 1) Businesses who exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labour and 2) the people smuggler's who profit from their misery.
"If South Africa can take 3 million refugees from Zimbabwe then I guess UK can take 100,000 'illegal' immigrants every few years."
^^ The Zimbabweans crossing into South Africa are genuinly fleeing the torture and persecution committed by Mugabe's regime. They are genuine asylum seekers.
The problem is that many people coming into the UK (and Western Europe) are not genuine asylum seekers at all. They are economic migrants posing as asylum seekers ( more than 8 out of 10 asylum applications are found to be false ). Whenever a bogus asylum seeker manages to claim asylum in the UK, he/she is taking the place of someone who is truly in need. That's the real tragedy; the system is being so badly abused, that the most vulnerable people are not getting the proper attention and help they need.
Britain has not had this level of inward migration in literally a thousand years. It is going to cause social problems. We should be accepting skilled immigrants and genuine asylum seekers. That would be fair. Instead, we continue to import unending, unprecedented masses of economic migrants from every corner of the globe.
Who's getting rich from this mess? 1) Businesses who exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labour and 2) the people smuggler's who profit from their misery.
Comment | Read Comments (20)
Print this story
Email to a friend
