Send the buggers back
Discussion
///ajd said:
Maybe there was an on-going dialogue about whether she could stay.
Sending someone who has only known the UK since they were 12 to a civil war torn country seems harsh, let alone after they've done 80% of a degree - whats more the UK economy can always benefit from engineers with a first. It appears her father died adding to the dilemma - if he could stay though, why not his kids?
I don't disagree but people can't moan on one hand about too many foreigners blah blah and then on the other get upset when the government adheres to the rules. At the end of the day she should not have been given a university place without a visa extension already in place 3 years ago.Sending someone who has only known the UK since they were 12 to a civil war torn country seems harsh, let alone after they've done 80% of a degree - whats more the UK economy can always benefit from engineers with a first. It appears her father died adding to the dilemma - if he could stay though, why not his kids?
craigjm said:
Evanivitch said:
craigjm said:
Evanivitch said:
jas xjr said:
just asking , would not india be an easier place to get to. i would imagine it would be fairly safe . no benefits though. plenty of work if you want it
Because impoverished in the UK is still significantly better than impoverished in India.Just because you're leaving a war torn country doesn't mean you've come from poverty. And living in a slum with disease and, again, no future isn't exactly a safe place.
I appreciate there are economic migrants that pass themselves as refugees. But I don't believe for a moment they are a majority.
The nearest signatories to Afghanistan for instance are Iran, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Interestingly India and Pakistan are not signatories. The UK is quite within its rights therefore to determine that ANY refugee applicant from Afghanistan has crossed through or over these territories and may return them to any of them.
The principle behind the safe country concept is that if you are fleeing persecution you leave to the nearest safe place. As soon as you make a decision such as "being impoverished in the UK would be better than India" you cease to be a potential refugee under international law and become an economic migrant.
This is what annoys me with the calias "refugees", they have passed through many a safe country and then demand to come to the UK, what about registering in France or any other safe country you have passed through, since they are not exactly a war zones, thats when they become econmoic migrants.
As soon as they refuse and demand the UK, then their application to enter should be torn up, if you are fleeing war, etc... then be happy staying in the first safe country instead of demanding a choice, afterall they are fleeing for their lives and just want a safe country.
Du1point8 said:
As soon as they refuse and demand the UK, then their application to enter should be torn up, if you are fleeing war, etc... then be happy staying in the first safe country instead of demanding a choice, afterall they are fleeing for their lives and just want a safe country.
Agree 100%. The UN should FORCE the French to deal with the issue. The woman in the OP's article is hardly top of the list of people needing deporting, but the Indy article on it is long on trying to tug the heart strings, short on any real facts of the case, and I really dislike cynically being played like that.
There is also a sense with similar cases, that the moment you've got your foot in the door of the UK, you seem to think the temporary period of time you've been given to stay here no longer means anything and it matters not if you just ignore the rules as it would be cruel to kick you out.
There is also a sense with similar cases, that the moment you've got your foot in the door of the UK, you seem to think the temporary period of time you've been given to stay here no longer means anything and it matters not if you just ignore the rules as it would be cruel to kick you out.
craigjm said:
///ajd said:
This seems a bit harsh too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exc...
On for a first in engineering, only 3 months of the degree left to do.
But her visa to study in the UK expired when she was 18 so she has been an overstayer for the past three years. The university is at fault here as they have not checked her leave to remain properly.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exc...
On for a first in engineering, only 3 months of the degree left to do.
Where is the other side to the story? Not in the bias Indy that's for sure!
In this case, the UK taxpayer (YOU) has afforded to subsidise the tertiary education of a person who has DELIBERATELY outstayed their visa.
We were kind enough (that must surprise you Slasher?) to give her refuge because of war in her country. That war 'ended' 8 years ago!
As someone else put it, just like YOU have afforded to subsidise an African mother to visit UK in order to have quadruplets on the NHS, costing it (us) half a million pounds.
In the case of the girl, you have to ask yourself why didn't she return home having been told she could have refuge here (aren't we decent) but COULD NOT STAY beyond completion of her SECONDARY education (NOT Uni!)?
She simply, aided by others, chanced her luck at UK taxpayer expense.
If you flout immigration law, expect consequences.
She came here on her father's student visa. He clearly was not a refugee. It was an immigration scam from day one.
She is a failed asylum seeker who with her mother has made repeated appeals FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS against deportation at YOUR expense.
End of game.
///ajd said:
Is that the full story - she looked after her mum for x year and her dad for y, and now she can't come back because that was too long.
Have the rules evolved during the time she was abroad?
I can't understand why we are deporting people that are & have been married to Brits for years. This is hardly a green card type scam, is it?
What a compassionate place the UK has become.
I think you answer your question in the third sentence with your opening line.Have the rules evolved during the time she was abroad?
I can't understand why we are deporting people that are & have been married to Brits for years. This is hardly a green card type scam, is it?
What a compassionate place the UK has become.
We evidently do not know the full story. We are being given, in that article, one side of the story.
Our automatic assumption needs to be that in "30 years" she has not been able to put forward a good enough case to remain. Therefore she has "illegal" status and should rightly be deported (the government's first and overriding priority should be towards its own citizens).
Same thing goes in the student case. There aren't differing degrees of "illegal" based upon the cut of someone's jib. Just illegal or not, and if you are you should leave.
Murph7355 said:
We evidently do not know the full story. We are being given, in that article, one side of the story.
Our automatic assumption needs to be that in "30 years" she has not been able to put forward a good enough case to remain. Therefore she has "illegal" status and should rightly be deported (the government's first and overriding priority should be towards its own citizens).
What has likely happened here is that she did not follow the rules around spousal visas that lead to permanent settlement. If you bring in a foreign bride you have to keep the visa valid for a solid five year period and then you can apply for settlement. If you don't do that then the clock starts again and settlement can only be granted after 5 clear years of valid visa and subsisting relationship. If she has been going backwards and forwards to Singapore for long periods of time that would cast doubt on the subsisting relationship and cause problems with ongoing visas meaning that settlement wouldn't happen.Our automatic assumption needs to be that in "30 years" she has not been able to put forward a good enough case to remain. Therefore she has "illegal" status and should rightly be deported (the government's first and overriding priority should be towards its own citizens).
The lesson from all of these kind of stories is to keep on top of your paperwork and follow the rules to the letter.
Du1point8 said:
craigjm said:
Evanivitch said:
craigjm said:
Evanivitch said:
jas xjr said:
just asking , would not india be an easier place to get to. i would imagine it would be fairly safe . no benefits though. plenty of work if you want it
Because impoverished in the UK is still significantly better than impoverished in India.Just because you're leaving a war torn country doesn't mean you've come from poverty. And living in a slum with disease and, again, no future isn't exactly a safe place.
I appreciate there are economic migrants that pass themselves as refugees. But I don't believe for a moment they are a majority.
The nearest signatories to Afghanistan for instance are Iran, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Interestingly India and Pakistan are not signatories. The UK is quite within its rights therefore to determine that ANY refugee applicant from Afghanistan has crossed through or over these territories and may return them to any of them.
The principle behind the safe country concept is that if you are fleeing persecution you leave to the nearest safe place. As soon as you make a decision such as "being impoverished in the UK would be better than India" you cease to be a potential refugee under international law and become an economic migrant.
This is what annoys me with the calias "refugees", they have passed through many a safe country and then demand to come to the UK, what about registering in France or any other safe country you have passed through, since they are not exactly a war zones, thats when they become econmoic migrants.
As soon as they refuse and demand the UK, then their application to enter should be torn up, if you are fleeing war, etc... then be happy staying in the first safe country instead of demanding a choice, afterall they are fleeing for their lives and just want a safe country.
There is NO general rule that you HAVE to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
craigjm said:
...
The lesson from all of these kind of stories is to keep on top of your paperwork and follow the rules to the letter.
Indeed.The lesson from all of these kind of stories is to keep on top of your paperwork and follow the rules to the letter.
You'd think that people wanting to reside here would be making themselves very au fait with the rules, rather than ignoring them. Especially with so much at stake in this instance.
Mrr T said:
...
The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
Is it not more about where they could/should have gone to find safety? It's pretty challenging moving geographic borders so it's surely safe to assume that France is not the first safe country when in Afghanistan. No?The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
Mrr T said:
Except for the fact this is not the facts.
There is NO general rule that you HAVE to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
Indeed which is why it is called as I quoted the "safe country concept". If you don't claim in the first safe country it harms your claim for asylum in any other. It doesn't mean you cant gain asylum it just means that you are more likely to be refused. You also do not have to prove which countries they travelled through to use the concept. Maybe you should check the UK Border Force guidelines that are followed in such cases before suggesting that facts are not facts.There is NO general rule that you HAVE to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
powerstroke said:
But they are cracking down on illegal immigration like we wanted them to do !!! or tinfoil hat on we will show you proles for moaning about our backers cheap labour force ... Now see what you have done .....
its f
king st ,people who have made lives here and not caused trouble , But criminal scum claim Human rights and are mollycoddled by the welfare state ...
Is your post at odds with the criteria though?its f
king st ,people who have made lives here and not caused trouble , But criminal scum claim Human rights and are mollycoddled by the welfare state ...This only happens if you income is less than 18K and you are therefore on benefits. In other words she is one of those mollycoddled by the welfare state that you are so keen to call scum.
Kicking someone out based on financial reasons is what so many people in this country voted for.
Murph7355 said:
Mrr T said:
...
The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
Is it not more about where they could/should have gone to find safety? It's pretty challenging moving geographic borders so it's surely safe to assume that France is not the first safe country when in Afghanistan. No?The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
http://www.unhcr.org/uk/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/backg...
Mrr T said:
Murph7355 said:
Mrr T said:
...
The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
Is it not more about where they could/should have gone to find safety? It's pretty challenging moving geographic borders so it's surely safe to assume that France is not the first safe country when in Afghanistan. No?The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
http://www.unhcr.org/uk/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/backg...
However, it appears to be dated 1991.
I think the world has changed a tad in the last 26 years. Perhaps it needs an urgent revision?
Mrr T said:
Murph7355 said:
Mrr T said:
...
The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
Is it not more about where they could/should have gone to find safety? It's pretty challenging moving geographic borders so it's surely safe to assume that France is not the first safe country when in Afghanistan. No?The first safe place idea breaks down because it’s virtually impossible to prove the countries the irregular immigrant moved through.
http://www.unhcr.org/uk/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/backg...
dandarez said:
I just had a decko at that, no time to read all of it.
However, it appears to be dated 1991.
I think the world has changed a tad in the last 26 years. Perhaps it needs an urgent revision?
UK immigration rules are constantly revised:However, it appears to be dated 1991.
I think the world has changed a tad in the last 26 years. Perhaps it needs an urgent revision?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immi...
Edited by Riley Blue on Monday 27th February 15:47
Sent the buggers back,this is all getting a bit silly.A woman with grandchildren who lived here many years.Jobsworth acting stupid.
Is this going to be tit for tat British retired workers carted back from Spain.
Or from any other E.U country.? Nobody has been send back to the U.K yet by force are we setting a precedent?
Is this going to be tit for tat British retired workers carted back from Spain.
Or from any other E.U country.? Nobody has been send back to the U.K yet by force are we setting a precedent?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff