jump to navigation

Asylum Support February 4, 2010

Posted by starglasgow in News.

Levels of asylum support for the next financial year are about to be set for the next financial year.  The Home Office have reduced support rates for lone parents to 66% of Income Support, and rates for single adults (aged 25 and above) have been reduced to just 55% of Income Support.  Single adults ages between 18 and 24 are given lower support rates because it is assumed that they can rely on their families for support, but this is not always the case, as many children arrive in the UK accompanied.  Refugee Council research indicates that the minimum level of support required to meet essential living needs; i.e. food, clothing, health, hygiene and the minimum amount to allow them to proceed with asylum claims (travel, postage, phone calls etc.) is £43.60 a week (70% of Income Support).   This means that currently, some Asylum Seekers in the UK are meeting the government’s own definition of destitution (Section 95 (3) Immigration and Asylum Act 1999).

Act now to prevent more cuts to Asylum Support!

What can I do?



1. Dave - February 4, 2010

Not so ….

Asylum seekers are housed in furnished homes which are repair free and they do not pay to heat or light these homes – the British taxpayers pay asylum seekers’ utility bills. Asylum seekers are given free school and college education, free NHS treatment, free dental care, free specs, free financial benefits, free translation services and free legal aid to keep them in Britain when their pleas to stay come up again and again for legal hearing. Their offspring receive 100% child benefit.

2. starglasgow - February 20, 2010

Hi Dave,

Whilst you’re right that Asylum Seekers have to rely on the Home Office for housing and other financial support, I don’t think we can blame them for the situiation. Most did not realise that they would be entitled to benefits when they arrived, and expected to be allowed to work to support themselves (and contribute to the British economy), which the UK government will not allow them to do. With regards to housing, Asylum Seekers are often stuck with homes Scottish people won’t live, in a poor state of repair and without decent facilities. I don’t have a problem with the Asylum Seekers and their children getting the education or healthcare that we all expect either; after all, they are basic human rights, regardless of your immigration status.

Why not come along to one of our meetings (6pm in the tv room at the QMU) for a chat and we can try to answer any questions you might have about asylum issues?

Star Glasgow

3. Dave - February 20, 2010

Star Glasgow, thanks for your reply ….

I am well aware of the not allowed to work rule and when asylum seekers come to Britain they know of the not allowed to work rule or if they didn‘t know then they are very quickly informed that they are not allowed to take up employment. If these people really want to work then they can go to another country (their first safe country for instance) and work. Not them – they choose to sit on their backsides for years and not work whilst living off our benefit system (and not contribute to the British economy) Also, why would any responsible employer employ a person whose background cannot be checked out – most of these asylum seekers arrive without any passports or documents as to who they are. Work? Haven’t you heard? Britain is in a recession. The indigenous are looking for work.
Asylum seekers do not meet the rules and conditions. For those outside of Britain who wish to seek employment here, there is a procedure which they can use. Jumping the employment queues by claiming asylum is not part of that procedure.

There is a vast shortage of habitable housing in Glasgow. At the time of the asylum seekers being brought to Glasgow there were reports of ‘seven thousand Glasgow pre-war homes, inhabited by Glaswegians, which are unsanitary and riddled with damp and rot.’ There were also reports of thousands of homeless people in Glasgow. There is a vast housing problem in Glasgow and these houses should have been made available to our own people – not doled out as free furnished accommodation to thousands of dispersed wandering nomad asylum seekers.

People claim asylum in the UK because they are supposedly fleeing torture, rape, murder, discrimination etc – didn’t you know that? They are supposed to be claiming sanctuary, refuge, a place safety. So what did they really come for – a nice wee free bungalow with a back and front garden, with free central heating, luxurious fitted all mod cons kitchen, an up-to-date bathroom, adjoining garage with a free car inside in an upmarket desirable area? And what did our big bad nasty government give them, a house in Red Road, Sighthill, Maryhill or Govanhill. How sad, now they will just have to live alongside Glaswegians who have been housed in Red Road, Sighthill, Maryhill and Govanhill.

4. starglasgow - February 24, 2010

Hello again Dave,

Apologies for the late replies.

You make a number of points; firstly, I don’t think asylum seekers are really in a position to go to another country in order to find work, apart from anything, as far as I’m aware, most European countries operate a similar rule. Whilst asylum seekers are free to, and often do, engage in voluntary work, we think that they should be able to seek employment whilst their claims are being processed. As for British people having priority for employment, I’ve always felt that those best qualified for a position should have priority, regardless of where they happen to be from.

You’re right; as studies by both the Refugee Council and the Home Office show, asylum seekers do come to the UK to seek refuge, and think of Britain as a safe place where their rights will be respected – rather than because they want to skip any employment queues, or are seeking our “cushy” benefits.

You’re also right about some of the terrible housing conditions in Glasgow – we think that no-one should have to live in damp, rotten houses, or be made homeless. However, it seems that asylum seekers are more vulnerable to finding themselves in this situation; precisely because they are forced to live in homes Glaswegians don’t want, have very little control over where they are sent to live, and can have all their support cut off at a moment’s notice.

I hope we’ve been able to answer all your questions,

Star Glasgow

Dave - February 26, 2010

Hi Star,

“I hope we’ve been able to answer all your questions” – I haven’t been asking questions – I have been making points.

I’ll dispel some of your “points”…..

If asylum seekers are in a position to come to Britain, then they are also in a position to leave Britain and go to other countries …. and …. our Home Office will gladly grant them every assistance to do so – to get rid of them.

Under no circumstances should asylum seekers be allowed to work. As I previously stated: “why would any responsible employer employ a person whose background cannot be checked out – most of these asylum seekers arrive without any passports or documents as to who they are.” They may have a criminal record, they have no past work record, they lie about the country they are from – they are totally unsuitable as employee material. Probably some of the asylum seekers will have a wee undeclared job on the side – whilst picking up the full range of benefits.

I do not have the right to work, even in my own country. I must live by and meet certain rules and conditions and earn my right to work. I must also find a situation or person who will provide me with employment. If I choose to become self-employed, I must also accept these rules and conditions to enter into business.
Asylum seekers do not meet the rules and conditions. For those outside of Britain who wish to seek employment here, there is a tried and tested procedure which they can use. Jumping the employment queues by claiming asylum is not part of that procedure (rules and conditions).

As for British people NOT having priority for employment – how absurd – do you think the thousands of unemployed and about to be unemployed Scots should be passed over or will prefer to sit on their backsides rather than chase vacancies? It’s morally incorrect that unemployed Scots should compete with asylum seekers for Scottish jobs.

My statement of “People claim asylum in the UK because they are supposedly fleeing torture, rape, murder, discrimination etc – didn’t you know that?” was made tongue in cheek. Let me rephrase it – People claim asylum in the UK because they wish to enter without the legal permission of that country and circumvent it’s laws by fraudulent means.

Housing ….

Asylum seekers are not “forced to live in homes Glaswegians don’t want” – the houses in which asylum seekers are accommodated are in the same areas where Glaswegians are and have been living in for years. And Glaswegians have “very little control over where they are sent to live” – why should asylum seekers who dump themselves uninvited into Britain have any preference or say in where or how we have to (unfortunately) accommodate them.

5. starglasgow - March 1, 2010


As far as I can tell you know very little about asylum seekers, their motivations, their lives and their opportunities. The points you make are not supported by respected sources (for example the Home Office), and I put it to you that they are based solely on your own prejudiced ideas and impressions received from the media. Moreover, the points you try to make are logically inconsistent. You don’t want asylum seekers to work to support themselves; you don’t want them to be supported by the taxpayer. Do you want them to starve and freeze on the streets? Or do you want them to suffer at the hands of barbaric regimes in their home countries? Or — do you want Britain to continue its rich tradition of protecting some of the most vulnerable people in the world? If you truly don’t believe that there are situations in the world from which people have no choice but from which to flee then you obviously don’t listen to the news. Which is ignorant. However ignorance is better than cruelty, which is what you appear to be promoting if you genuinely believe that people approaching Britain for succour should be turned away or left destitute.

You write to us like we are not aware or have not critically considered both sides of this issue. And you make it out that people like us who support asylum seekers are somehow unpatriotic or do not care about the disadvantaged here in Scotland. Both of these things are untrue. We regularly debate the issues surrounding asylum and immigration, and whilst we do not agree on everything, we all believe that genuine refugees should be welcome in Britain. Social housing, the economy, ending poverty, and similar issues, are matters which many of us are passionate about, both in Scotland, the UK and beyond.

Where possible our posts here are referenced back to the original government/NGO reports. In future posts I would ask you to include the references that support any assertions you make (for example, in your previous post, that “People claim asylum in the UK because they wish to enter without the legal permission of that country and circumvent it’s laws by fraudulent means”) so we can constructively move this debate on from unfounded impressions.

Looking forwards to dealing with any further points you wish to make,

Star Glasgow.

6. DAVE - April 19, 2010

Hi Star,

I replied to your comment at March 1 2010. My comment was posted on the web. Why did you delete my comment? Couldn’t you live up your promise of “dealing with any further points you wish to make”?

Here’s my comment again ….

“you know very little about asylum seekers” / “your own prejudiced ideas” / ignorance is better than cruelty, which is what you appear to be promoting” – sad that you had to resort to insult in an attempt to add credibility to your “points”.

You claim, “The points you make are not supported by respected sources” – how ironic, the claims the asylum seekers make (rape, torture, murder victimisation et al) are unsupported – and where’s YOUR support by “respected sources”?

Now pay attention – Asylum seekers must not work, they are not allowed to work, this is law, you offer merely an opinion. Asylum seekers do not have a checkable character or work record background – end of story – they are unemployable.

You “debate” and still you are of the opinion that asylum seekers should work – what work? Next time, include this in your debate. These are headlines from Scottish local newspapers concerning Scottish people ….

Jobless toll in Scotland rockets by 67% in year

Scottish unemployment soars by more than 20,000

Scottish firms shedding jobs at record pace

Up to 44 people for every job

Recession forecast to cost 100,000 Scots their jobs

Unemployment in Scotland jumps 75,000 in a year

Economists warn 50,000 people to lose jobs in Scotland

One in five Scots households jobless

1500 people call jobs hotline in fight for just 40 store posts

200,000 Scots are out of work

Scots job loss rate fastest in western Europe

Asylum seekers do not have to starve or freeze in the streets. Those who have been legally informed they have no legal or moral right (or ever had) to be in Britain and refuse to accept the decisions of our courts by absconding / disappearing / going on the run, place themselves and their offspring in the situation of potential starving and freezing in the streets. The “starving” and “freezing” lie was put about by Robina Qureshi, director of “charity”, Positive Action in Housing in her absurd claims that our ‘‘Government makes it its policy to starve people out of this country to stop them claiming refuge’’.

My previous post, that “People claim asylum in the UK because they wish to enter without the legal permission of that country and circumvent it’s laws by fraudulent means” …. To carry on risking your life to get to the UK after having reached a safe country negates any asylum claim. It proves that the over-riding aim is not safety, since that has already been achieved, but to get to this country. Therefore all those who have done this should be deported without appeal as bogus claims.” It’s theft by deception.

We must end the link between economic gain and bogus asylum.

C’mon star, lets’s hear from you let’s see you “dealing with any further points you wish to make”.

Dave, Glasgow.

7. Jamie - May 5, 2010

Hello Dave,

If you are going to reply to our messages, please read them through first. You can say things, things that you might genuinely believe, but until you provide sources they are just words, not facts.

Look, we are all open-minded people, but we have thought this through in depth, and our stance is clear. I doubt that you are going to change our minds on this issue by posting messages here. And unfortunately, I doubt that we are going to change yours. We believe that people approaching Britain for succour should be treated decently, that asylum seekers should be treated as people fleeing unbearable conditions in their home countries. You believe that they should be treated as criminals, scroungers and liars. I don’t know where we can even start to find common ground for discussion.

The only way, perhaps, is by working from facts, rather than impressions. We try to do this as much as possible: provide the facts about the situation, which have been researched by government bodies and charities; and the laws which describe how things should be carried out; and we meet with asylum seekers and refugees and actually talk to them and get their side of the story.

Perhaps if we work from facts then we can actually begin a productive debate, but to be honest you are probably wasting your time.



Dave - May 8, 2010

Hi Jamie,

I always read messages before replying. You obviously didn’t read mine. You invite comments and resort to deleting those which you are unable to answer. Tell me, which part(s) of my comment(s) do you wish me to substantiate?

You believe “that asylum seekers should be treated as people fleeing unbearable conditions in their home countries”.

Here’s why I believe they are “scroungers and liars” (your words).

Here’s comments from two Zimbabweans cut and pasted from “New Zimbabwe” …. these comments will prove how the British people are being taken to the cleaners …. by a load of freeloading bogus “asylum seekers”.

sayina says:

99% asylums are fake, lawyers are educated enough they knoe it, but they also need to survive, when visas started getting tough, people went to Malawi to buy passports, my closest friend did that and i have the details, some were given Mlawi names, that other woman with two of her daughters being featured as someone who lost her husband and her daughters were raped is a pure lie, the surname she is using she got it from Malawi when she bought the passport, these are the people made the holy lies when the economy was getting worse, lets be real, kana macriminals ava pa asylum……rinemanyanga hariputirwi, ko Tendai lawyer akadya mari yema trust funds enherera inga wani ari pa asylum, its time to reveal the identities of criminals and they should be deported back to Zimbabwe, imagine you in your grave and the custodian of your hard earned money relegates your kids to abject poverty because of greed, and further ciminalises the soil you lying in by fake claiming, he had to skip coz his parents were all killed for supporting MDC, stinking lies, go back Tendai, the orphans you denied a future are now teenagers, they waiting for their justice

and ….

Thesaint.com says:

Lets pull together as Zimbas there’s nothing we can’t accomplish when we’re united! But i urge my fellow refuges to refrain from scoring obvious ‘own goals’, that is by going home to Zim on direct flights as soon as assylum papers are granted! This is shameful. Zvinonyadzisa! Let’s think. Whether u get a red or you continue using a green passport, the truth is all travel since 9/11 is monitored.

Them’s the facts – straight from the horse’s mouth.



8. Olivia - May 11, 2010

Hello Dave,

I’m not aware of “New Zimbabwe”, would you mind elaborating on why it should be taken as a credible source? I do know that Amnesty International’s 2009 Zimbabwe report stated that the human rights situation “deteriorated sharply in 2008 with an unprecedented wave of state-sponsored human rights violations, perpetrated mainly by security forces, war veterans and supporters of the Zimbabwe African National Union”

You can find that report here: (http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/zimbabwe/report-2009)

Somewhat more credible, I think are the independent reports published by the Home Office, in 2002

(Robinson & Segrott, 2002 “Understanding The Decision-Making of Asylum Seekers”, Home Office Research Study 243)

which you can read here: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors243.pdf,

and more recently, the Refugee Council, in 2010

(Crawley, 2010, “Chance or Choice“, Swansea University & Refugee Council)

available here: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/Resources/Refugee%20Council/downloads/rcchance.pdf ).

The Home Office report in particular is interesting because it gives a very comprehensive overview of existing literature on the subject, however, the findings of both reports are broadly similar, presenting evidence that many people did not choose to come the UK specifically and were only seeking a “safe country” (Robinson & Segrott, 2002: 20-21, also, Crawley 2010: 5), as their journey was arranged not by them but by an agent (Crawley, 2010: 19). Of the very few refugees who actually make it out of their area or origin, and are lucky enough to be able to choose the UK as a destination, both studies find that colonial ties (Robinson & Segrott, 2002: 30-31, Crawley, 2010: 17), and the desire to be reunited with family members (Robinson & Segrott, 2002: 39, Crawley, 2010: 29) are important factors, however, the main reason for choosing Britain is the perception that Britain is a safe place where their rights would be respected (Robinson & Segrott, 2002: 26, Crawley, 2010: 27).

“Images of the UK as a country were more extensive and of greater relevance to the decision-making of asylum seekers in the sample than perceptions of UK asylum procedures or welfare support. Whilst images of the UK were obviously unimportant for those who had no say in their destination, for the remainder perceptions of the UK (and their quantity and quality) were often crucial in shaping their decision to seek asylum here … The UK was certainly not viewed as a land of ‘milk and honey’.” (Robinson & Segrott, 2002: 27).

The Refugee Council find that:

“ …there is a belief held by many policy makers, politicians and the public, that asylum seekers actively choose to come to the UK in preference to other potential countries of asylum and that this decision is based primarily on information that they have about the asylum system and the level of support to which they will be entitled. This has led to accusations that the UK asylum system is a ‘soft touch’. … This belief is not supported by the existing research evidence” (Crawley, 2010: 26).

Both reports are very interesting, as is a study by Zimmerman, of the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, looking at why refugees leave “safe” second countries for Europe, which finds, again, that people are looking for documentation, and permanent, safe, places to build a life.

(Zimmerman, 2009, “Irregular Secondary Movements to Europe: Seeking Asylum beyond Refuge” Journal of Refugee Studies Vol. 22, No. 1)

I am not yet aware of any academic study or survey, or in fact anything from any reputable source which contradicts these findings. You shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet, Dave.



9. Dave - May 15, 2010

Hi Olivia,

So you’re next in line for me to shoot down – no problem. You do your cut n’ paste (almost zero from yourself) and as reference you supply reports on website addresses to be found on the internet. In your closing sentence you offer me the advice: “You shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet, Dave.” How stupid of you to offer the internet as a source and then tell me not to believe it. Oh dear!

“New Zimbabwe” is one of the social network websites Zimbabweans use to communicate with each other – those who are in the UK and those who are trying to get into the UK. The favoured way by Zimbabweans of getting into the UK (and other countries) is to use the (bogus) asylum route. What you gain from these websites is the information and assistance Zimbabweans supply to each other. Not the made up garbage they (Zimbabweans) give to the Home Office and the Refugee Council et al to compile their reports and studies on.

Plane tickets bought, place of departure stated, place of arrival confirmed and Zimbabwean asylum seekers have “no say in their destination” (lol) (lol) (lol).
Hundreds of thousands? of asylum seekers and refugees trekking across France to gain entry to the UK have “no say in their destination” (lol) (lol) (lol).
And for any small number of asylum seekers who are dropped off, destination unknown to them, that does not make their dropping-off legal.

And …. sorry, but “colonial ties and the desire to be reunited with family members” is not a legal or credible reason for seeking or granting asylum in the UK or anywhere else.

As for looking for documents: Asylum seekers destroy their personal papers, passports etc. They adopt false names, even change their countries of origin. Yes, they probably are looking for documents such as false past work history and anything they can use to con their way into settling in the UK.

Strange you wish to believe the tales of murder, rape, victimisation et al told by Zimbabweans but refuse to accept their straight from the horse’s mouth correspondence to each other.

Olivia, why not attempt to post a comment in your own words rather than do cut n’ paste from tax-funded biased asylum and refugee support groups and “charities”. Educate yourself – visit the social network websites used by asylum seekers and refugees.



10. Olivia - May 16, 2010

Hello Dave,

There is a difference between respected, credible, peer reviewed academic sources which are, happily for students, accessible on the internet, and social networking forums. For example, here is just one of the many forums for people who have been abducted by aliens: http://www.alienhub.com/alien-life-ufo-sightings/8323-what-species-alien.html

However, we must also rely on our personal experiences; I assume that you have personally met and talked to many many people who have told you they are lying about their asylum applications. Which is funny, because i’ve never got that impression from any of the asylum seekers i’ve met.

Anyway, i’m still pretty sure that 1) whilst the Home Office is certainly tax-funded, I wouldn’t call it an asylum and refugee support group, and 2) you’ve still not provided anything other than hearsay as evidence for your beliefs.



11. Dave - May 17, 2010

Hi Olivia,

There you go again, offering a load of internet garbage – abducted by aliens – get a life!

Social networking forums where asylum seekers / refugees seek advice are extremely credible ways of finding out what’s going on – do you honestly believe they are deliberately giving false information and lying to each other.

The Home Office!!! The same Home Office that employs illegal immigrants! Haven’t you read / heard the saying: “NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE”. The Home Office supports and panders to our government(s) open door policy.

Would you seriously expect asylum seekers to tell me (or anyone else) they were lying about their applications – don’t be daft.

“For example” here’s two who were found out …

*AN AFRICAN mother who lived in Scotland while seeking refugee status in the UK was jailed for 18 months after admitting lying about her background. The removal of Fatou Gaye and her son Arouna, four, from their home in Glasgow in May 2009 gained widespread publicity.

Prosecutor Claudette Elliott said Gaye had cost taxpayers well over £100,000 by taking out legally-aided cases in an attempt to stay and was given cash, food tokens and accommodation. Ms Elliott said: “The defendant embarked on a web of deceit from February 2005 to July 2009.”

Gaye arrived in the UK on 27 August, 2004, on a visitor’s visa from Senegal. On 1 February, 2005, she went to UK Border Agency offices in Croydon and asked to remain as a refugee, saying that she was from the Ivory Coast. There were two judicial reviews and five appeals into her case in an attempt to prevent her and her son being deported. It was only as they were being flown to the Ivory Coast that his mother revealed she did not come from there.

Gaye used every underhand tactic and lie which she could dream up from her devious mind to con her way into staying illegally in the UK. She lied that her husband was murdered in the Ivory Coast and that she was repeatedly raped by the soldiers there – she is a liar – she was never in the Ivory Coast – except to be refused entry as an illegal immigrant.

sources: Scotsman newspaper – 08 October 2009 / BBC NEWS – 7 October 2009


KATHMANDU: A murky incident in Nepal five years ago that caused the suicide of a young actress and exposed the exploitation of women in the kingdom’s entertainment industry has been laid to rest with the death of the perpetrator in the UK.

Uddhav Bhandari, a former police inspector, died in Glasgow’s Royal Infirmary on Sunday after setting himself ablaze the previous week. Bhandari, living in Edinburgh since the Shrisha Karki scandal in Nepal in 2002, had been fighting a legal battle to win asylum in UK.

In his application, he had described himself as the bodyguard of queen Aishwarya, who was killed in the royal palace massacre in 2001. The documents he submitted included a photograph showing him standing behind the late queen. Bhandari, who claimed his life would be in jeopardy if he returned to Nepal, set himself alight outside the tribunal that was to decide his fate on Wednesday.

Though he claimed to the UK authorities that he had exposed corruption in Nepal, he is known as the man who tricked and threatened Shrisha Karki, a young model and actress, into allowing him to take her nude photographs. Nepal’s media sources say Bhandari carried a portfolio of several other aspiring models and starlets who were blackmailed by him and his friends.

Shrisha’s photos made its way to a Nepali weekly, creating a furore. Four days after the publication of the photos, she hanged herself. Though two journalists who wrote the report were arrested and faced social censure, no action was ever taken against Bhandari, who left for Scotland.

Nepali weekly Ghatana R Bichar says he could afford to live in one of the rich in the UK due to the fortune he had amassed illegally while being posted at the Kathmandu airport.



You want me to provide evidence for my “beliefs” ….
Jamie (May 5 2010) stated: “You can say things, things that you might genuinely believe, but until you provide sources they are just words, not facts.” My reply (May 8 2010) to Jamie: “Tell me, which part(s) of my comment(s) do you wish me to substantiate?” – My comment was deleted without reply.
Olivia, tell me, which part(s) of my comment(s) do you wish me to substantiate?



12. Jamie - May 19, 2010

I have some questions for you Dave:

1. Do you believe that people genuinely fleeing persecution have a right to seek refuge in the UK?
2. Do you believe that people who claim to be genuinely fleeing persecution have a right to have their case fairly assessed, i.e. to be treated as honest unless the evidence proves otherwise? Who should judge this case? What evidence(s) should they base the case on? And what if they get it wrong?
3. In the case of people who lie to get into the UK to improve their lives (I’m sure it happens, but probably not as frequently as you believe): do you believe that these people have lost all their rights to be treated with dignity, to be treated as human beings?
4. And following on from (3), do you believe that the children of these people also deserve to be treated as criminals, to be subjected to arbitrary detention, dawn raids, and forced removals?

By the way after substantial searching I couldn’t find any comments by sayina or Thesaint.com on New Zimbabwe. And what makes you think sayina saying “99% asylums are fake” is more believable than me saying “99% asylums are genuine”?

And do you /really/ think that message boards are a useful source of information? (I think that was Olivia’s point with the alien abduction: you’re right, it is nonsense, like a lot of other stuff online). Do you really think that asylum seekers, living on £35 a week, possibly never having owned a computer, possibly not even able to speak English, are sitting reading and posting messages on forums?


13. Dave - May 21, 2010

Hi Jamie,

1. People genuinely fleeing persecution have a right to seek refuge, but not in the UK, unless the UK is their nearest safe country.

2. People who claim to be genuinely fleeing persecution have a right to have their case fairly assessed, i.e. to be treated as honest unless the evidence proves otherwise, but not in the UK, unless the UK is their nearest safe country.

a. Who should judge this case? Those who have been legally appointed to judge asylum claims.

b. What evidence(s) should they base the case on? The evidence the asylum seekers put forward in their asylum claim.

c. And what if they get it wrong? If a decision is reached that they have no right or have made no case to stay in this country then they must be told to leave.

3. Yes.

4. The children of these people are NOT treated as criminals, subjected to arbitrary detention, dawn raids. Once a decision has been reached it should be enforced until the decision is carried out.
If the failed asylum seeker refuses to leave the UK, then they must be removed by force.

Because sayina is a Zimbabwean, she / he knows that which is going on with her / his own people. You saying “99% asylums are genuine” is spurious – and you know it to be.

Asylum seekers form a section of the large numbers of people who correspond via the internet. Zimbabweans living outside their home country keep in touch with those living in Zimbabwe. Information and advice is passed on how to get to the UK, what’s happening in Zimbabwe, immigration lawyers answer questions etc.

There will be asylums seekers who have never owned a computer, but they have access to computers – schools, colleges, libraries, meeting places – and if required, tutoring on how to use computers and the net. There will be asylum seekers who can’t speak English, but think about it, Zimbabweans can use their own language when posting to Zimbabweans – no English required.

Tell me, what do you think “asylum seekers, living on £35 a week, possibly never having owned a computer, possibly not even able to speak English” do all day, possibly for years, whilst they are waiting for the papers to stay.

I have some questions for you Jamie:

1. Do you believe that once a law has been democratically arrived at it should be enforced until such times as citizens and their political representatives see fit to change it?

2. Do you believe that those who are deemed to be illegal, and have no legitimate case for staying here merely because they wish to should be allowed to stay?

3. Do you believe that once a decision is made (by those who have been legally appointed to judge asylum claims) asylum seekers should either be allowed to stay or deported as illegals, dependant upon the outcome of the decision?

4. Do you believe in given right of residence merely by virtue of being able to arrive here by whatever means and from anywhere in the world?

We have a process whereby asylum seekers are given the chance to state their case for living in the UK.

We allow these people the right to make their cases to the courts which deal with the legality of asylum and residence claims.

If the decision is that they have no right or have made no case to stay in this country and they have gone through all the legal avenues open to them, they must be told to leave.

If they refuse to leave then our appointed immigration officers have the right and the duty to eject them by whatever means necessary and without harassment of our officials whilst they carry out the legal deportation.

The law must be enforced or it is no law at all. If you disagree with it then use the democratic process to convince enough of your fellow citizens that it should be changed and if they are in agreement with you it will be changed via the ballot box.

Until then we must enforce the laws we make.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: