Britain is a generous, kindly and tolerant nation.
Discussion
JDRoest said:
What we need to do is put him in a cell and ascertain what he's actually done. Turning up on UK shores and shouting asylum should not entitle you to have access to the nation and it's benefits; it should entitle you to protection from another country but in no way should you be given access to the freedom of the country until it's fit and proper to do so. The ability for any immigrant wandering round the country needs to be seen as a privilege, not a right.
Our country should also be entitled to protection from the asylum seeker themselves.
Our country should also be entitled to protection from the asylum seeker themselves.
Detention is indeed possible, but the inefficient government detains people, forgets to process their cases for five to eight years, and then has to let the detainee out and pay damages, because of sheer incompetence. That is, to me, an annoying misuse of public resources. Another such misuse is allowing overstayers to remain with no attempt to remove them for many years, even though the overstayer is not in hiding. Again, pure incompetence by the Home Office. The overstayer has kids, and the kids are often UK citizens. Then it is too late to remove the overstayer. The Mail does not tell you this.
JD, one side point, if I may. You tell us elsewhere that your country is now the USA, and tell us also what a hole the UK is, mainly, if I understand you correctly, because in the UK you are not allowed to go around tooled up like a character in a Vin Diesel straight to video epic. How is this Somali geezer impacting adversely on your life over there in Gunsville, Kentucky?
Bill said:
Digga said:
At that time, I don't remember anyone thinking it was a good idea to offer Idi Amin a council house.
There is a raft of evidence against Idi Amin, so internment would be justified.I add that genuine refugees from hellish places, who have been traumatised by uniformed goons, prison camps, and so on, are sometimes confronted here in the UK by robust blokes in uniforms and then detained, children included, in immigration detention centres with dogs and razor wire. I have been to two such centres. They are not pleasant. Sometimes detention is required, sometimes not.
Sometimes the detained children cannot speak, because they can only think of watching their father being chopped up with machetes, and their sister being gang raped by soldiers, as their family’s hut burns. Not all cases are like this, but there are many, and the Mail, again, reports only the dodgy Somali crim cases. My ex-wife, a tough minded Immigration Judge, who refuses far more appeals than she allows, sometimes comes home ashen faced after hearing some of the evidence, and/or apopleptic at the incompetence of the UKBA in dealing with good cases and bad ones. I see some of the worst ones, also, when arguing about removals on behalf of the Home Sec in the Court of Appeal, with a success rate of about 50/50.
Many of the cases are of course pure cases of economic migrancy, and there are many abusers of the system. The system would be better all around if the government stopped making excuses and devoted resources to running it properly, but, as always, everything must be done for a quid, while we burn money on daft NHS changes, Trident missiles, pointless referenda, and so on.
Sometimes the detained children cannot speak, because they can only think of watching their father being chopped up with machetes, and their sister being gang raped by soldiers, as their family’s hut burns. Not all cases are like this, but there are many, and the Mail, again, reports only the dodgy Somali crim cases. My ex-wife, a tough minded Immigration Judge, who refuses far more appeals than she allows, sometimes comes home ashen faced after hearing some of the evidence, and/or apopleptic at the incompetence of the UKBA in dealing with good cases and bad ones. I see some of the worst ones, also, when arguing about removals on behalf of the Home Sec in the Court of Appeal, with a success rate of about 50/50.
Many of the cases are of course pure cases of economic migrancy, and there are many abusers of the system. The system would be better all around if the government stopped making excuses and devoted resources to running it properly, but, as always, everything must be done for a quid, while we burn money on daft NHS changes, Trident missiles, pointless referenda, and so on.
Breadvan72 said:
I add that genuine refugees from hellish places, who have been traumatised by uniformed goons, prison camps, and so on, are sometimes confronted here in the UK by robust blokes in uniforms and then detained, children included, in immigration detention centres with dogs and razor wire. I have been to two such centres. They are not pleasant. Sometimes detention is required, sometimes not.
Sometimes the detained children cannot speak, because they can only think of watching their father being chopped up with machetes, and their sister being gang raped by soldiers, as their family’s hut burns. Not all cases are like this, but there are many, and the Mail, again, reports only the dodgy Somali crim cases. My ex-wife, a tough minded Immigration Judge, who refuses far more appeals than she allows, sometimes comes home ashen faced after hearing some of the evidence, and/or apopleptic at the incompetence of the UKBA in dealing with good cases and bad ones. I see some of the worst ones, also, when arguing about removals on behalf of the Home Sec in the Court of Appeal, with a success rate of about 50/50.
Many of the cases are of course pure cases of economic migrancy, and there are many abusers of the system. The system would be better all around if the government stopped making excuses and devoted resources to running it properly, but, as always, everything must be done for a quid, while we burn money on daft NHS changes, Trident missiles, pointless referenda, and so on.
Couldn't agree more. As a pupil many years ago I did a lot of IAT stuff at Feltham. Some of it was grim stuff, and made you feel blessed to have been born here. But for every genueine case, there was a raft of liars, cheats and people playing the system.Sometimes the detained children cannot speak, because they can only think of watching their father being chopped up with machetes, and their sister being gang raped by soldiers, as their family’s hut burns. Not all cases are like this, but there are many, and the Mail, again, reports only the dodgy Somali crim cases. My ex-wife, a tough minded Immigration Judge, who refuses far more appeals than she allows, sometimes comes home ashen faced after hearing some of the evidence, and/or apopleptic at the incompetence of the UKBA in dealing with good cases and bad ones. I see some of the worst ones, also, when arguing about removals on behalf of the Home Sec in the Court of Appeal, with a success rate of about 50/50.
Many of the cases are of course pure cases of economic migrancy, and there are many abusers of the system. The system would be better all around if the government stopped making excuses and devoted resources to running it properly, but, as always, everything must be done for a quid, while we burn money on daft NHS changes, Trident missiles, pointless referenda, and so on.
It's one of the reasons I got out.
Digga said:
, but we'll never know because the ideaology of multi-culture prevented even the most cursory of dilligence in this respect.
Did it? Or is the UKBA so over stretched they can't do adequate checks on anyone? With the benefit of hindsight he's easily spotted but I bet he blended in with hundreds of other genuine looking cases at the time.Bill said:
Digga said:
, but we'll never know because the ideaology of multi-culture prevented even the most cursory of dilligence in this respect.
Did it? Or is the UKBA so over stretched they can't do adequate checks on anyone? With the benefit of hindsight he's easily spotted but I bet he blended in with hundreds of other genuine looking cases at the time.And if we couldn't cope with the 'hundreds' of cases properly, then surely this ought to have been flagged as an issue?
oyster said:
Anyhow to answer AnonSpoilsport's questions directed at me:
a. If he's convicted of a crime then he should be jailed. If he's wanted for a crime abroad then he should be extradited. If that country would punish him for that crime upon conviction then tough for him. Don't like the time, then don't do the crime.
b. I'm not saying it isn't a problem or an issue on a case by case basis, of course it is. and to the individuals involved it's important. But is it affecting all of our daily lives? No.
c. I think our justice system is a little too lenient at times. Not a long way off, but a tad too lenient.
Thanks for the reply, we're pretty much in agreement overall though I wonder if some judges/decisions show (c) to be more than a tad too lenient in some cases.a. If he's convicted of a crime then he should be jailed. If he's wanted for a crime abroad then he should be extradited. If that country would punish him for that crime upon conviction then tough for him. Don't like the time, then don't do the crime.
b. I'm not saying it isn't a problem or an issue on a case by case basis, of course it is. and to the individuals involved it's important. But is it affecting all of our daily lives? No.
c. I think our justice system is a little too lenient at times. Not a long way off, but a tad too lenient.
Also agree with Breadvan (he'll be horrified I know!) that the reporting is often over egged, as it represents the bubbling frustration (as well as journalists' desire for a story/storm) at the minority of cases that are so out of kilter with fairness, common sense and the protection of the majority, such that people want to shout and lash out about it. Ditto, re. the sheer incompetence of Govt. and civil service (and lack of investment in the related systems) that leads to so many awful decisions either way.
oyster said:
What's really ironic is that 99% of educated people would read your post and then read mine, and conclude that yours is nonsense rather than mine. Capital letters do not make you more engaging as a debater.
Oh and the ultimate irony in a post about sending immigrants home is that you refer to the English language with a small 'e'.
Anyhow to answer AnonSpoilsport's questions directed at me:
a. If he's convicted of a crime then he should be jailed. If he's wanted for a crime abroad then he should be extradited. If that country would punish him for that crime upon conviction then tough for him. Don't like the time, then don't do the crime.
b. I'm not saying it isn't a problem or an issue on a case by case basis, of course it is. and to the individuals involved it's important. But is it affecting all of our daily lives? No.
c. I think our justice system is a little too lenient at times. Not a long way off, but a tad too lenient.
I'm sorry but are you misquoting me, or have me confused with someone else? I have no idea what you're talking about. I just checked my previous posts, and I don't recall ever mentioning sending immigrants home? I'm an ex-pat living abroad, that would be ironic wouldn't it?Oh and the ultimate irony in a post about sending immigrants home is that you refer to the English language with a small 'e'.
Anyhow to answer AnonSpoilsport's questions directed at me:
a. If he's convicted of a crime then he should be jailed. If he's wanted for a crime abroad then he should be extradited. If that country would punish him for that crime upon conviction then tough for him. Don't like the time, then don't do the crime.
b. I'm not saying it isn't a problem or an issue on a case by case basis, of course it is. and to the individuals involved it's important. But is it affecting all of our daily lives? No.
c. I think our justice system is a little too lenient at times. Not a long way off, but a tad too lenient.
However I agree with a,b and c - so we're talking about the same thing.
Edited to add: "Let them all in" referring to criminals and such unsavoury characters who are wanted for crimes in their own countries.
Breadvan72 said:
JD, one side point, if I may. You tell us elsewhere that your country is now the USA, and tell us also what a hole the UK is
I may have left, but I still do care what happens in the UK. It might be a hole, but it's the hole I came from, and I do still pity the few of you who are left, especially the deluded ones who still think that the UK is the best place to live on the planet.Bill said:
We could intern him while we ascertain whether he should face charges, but I bet that would be more expensive than what's happening now. Particularly when you factor in the human rights case that would inevitably pop up.
Expense should be secondary to some of this stuff - isn't enough money collected in taxation to have a proper immigration regime? You cannot simply land in a country, become an illegal immigrant and expect all the same rights and privileges of the indigenous population from day 1, even if you do shout and scream "asylum" at Heathrow the moment you land.And who says that the UK (or whichever country) even wants you when you land?
Breadvan72 said:
Asylum seekers do not get the same rights and privileges as the indigenous population (whatever that term means). An argument that is not premised on facts tends to be a bit problematic.
So you're saying that they don't get access to health care, protection by the police, fire service if their abode happens to burn down, etc? They get practically everything but the right to work. I'm figuring that's a pretty decent set of rights for just managing to set foot in another country.JDRoest said:
Breadvan72 said:
Asylum seekers do not get the same rights and privileges as the indigenous population (whatever that term means). An argument that is not premised on facts tends to be a bit problematic.
So you're saying that they don't get access to health care, protection by the police, fire service if their abode happens to burn down, etc? They get practically everything but the right to work. I'm figuring that's a pretty decent set of rights for just managing to set foot in another country.Many here bang on about the Daily Mail telling the world distorted crap about how asylum seekers get free homes and money and this, that and the other, only to employ the same truth distorting tactic of saying asylum seekers don't get housing, money and the right to work etc etc. As ever , you have to dig a little bit and find the trut is some place between the two.
Mr_B said:
Some do get the right to work http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01908
Many here bang on about the Daily Mail telling the world distorted crap about how asylum seekers get free homes and money and this, that and the other, only to employ the same truth distorting tactic of saying asylum seekers don't get housing, money and the right to work etc etc. As ever , you have to dig a little bit and find the trut is some place between the two.
I'm not talking about whether they get housing or welfare (mainly because I didn't think they do anyway), but they still get services that we take for granted, like healthcare, protection by the police, etc. Even the basic right to walk down the street and be in our society is taken for granted, not by the asylum seekers, but by the people who run the country!Many here bang on about the Daily Mail telling the world distorted crap about how asylum seekers get free homes and money and this, that and the other, only to employ the same truth distorting tactic of saying asylum seekers don't get housing, money and the right to work etc etc. As ever , you have to dig a little bit and find the trut is some place between the two.
Why should the UK be the dumping ground for the world's trash?
Any visitor to this country has the right to protection by the emergency services and so forth. You can trace the origin of that principle to Magna Carta, if not beyond. It would be a strange country that only provided police services etc to those who are resident in the country.
Most asylum seekers are not allowed to work, although of course some work illegally, and in some cases the no work rule may be waived. The financial support available to mist asylum seekers is some way below the quiet low level of basic welfare benefits, and currently stands at about £36 a week.
Your reference to the "World's trash" rather trails your coat as to what your real views might be, JDR. Some of those who come seeking asylum or as economic migrants are indeed trashy, usually because they come from trashy places, where being un-trashy is quite hard; but many who come, whether to escape danger or simply to seek economic improvement, are no more or less trashy than people who have been here longer. As always, broad generalisations, and assuming that all members of a group have the characteristics displayed by the one who gets his name in the paper for being a scumbag, don't take us very far.
Most asylum seekers are not allowed to work, although of course some work illegally, and in some cases the no work rule may be waived. The financial support available to mist asylum seekers is some way below the quiet low level of basic welfare benefits, and currently stands at about £36 a week.
Your reference to the "World's trash" rather trails your coat as to what your real views might be, JDR. Some of those who come seeking asylum or as economic migrants are indeed trashy, usually because they come from trashy places, where being un-trashy is quite hard; but many who come, whether to escape danger or simply to seek economic improvement, are no more or less trashy than people who have been here longer. As always, broad generalisations, and assuming that all members of a group have the characteristics displayed by the one who gets his name in the paper for being a scumbag, don't take us very far.
JDRoest said:
Mr_B said:
Some do get the right to work http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01908
Many here bang on about the Daily Mail telling the world distorted crap about how asylum seekers get free homes and money and this, that and the other, only to employ the same truth distorting tactic of saying asylum seekers don't get housing, money and the right to work etc etc. As ever , you have to dig a little bit and find the trut is some place between the two.
I'm not talking about whether they get housing or welfare (mainly because I didn't think they do anyway), but they still get services that we take for granted, like healthcare, protection by the police, etc. Even the basic right to walk down the street and be in our society is taken for granted, not by the asylum seekers, but by the people who run the country!Many here bang on about the Daily Mail telling the world distorted crap about how asylum seekers get free homes and money and this, that and the other, only to employ the same truth distorting tactic of saying asylum seekers don't get housing, money and the right to work etc etc. As ever , you have to dig a little bit and find the trut is some place between the two.
Why should the UK be the dumping ground for the world's trash?
Not everyone who comes here, either via the asylum 'route' or other ways is trash. Perhaps if we had a better funded and better organised system based on allowing people with genuine needs to enter and to help them to find training/employability/work/income and, ultimately, housing of their own we wouldn't have the nightmare of these quasi internment camps, massively expensive (I'm assuming) and long running legal cases and the drain on expenditure of having to provide all their needs, such as are met. We might actually end up with a body of people - hopefully with some appreciation and gratitude - contributing to our economy and needs rather than being an embarrassing and costly blight on our actuality and reputation.
On top of which, that funding/organisation could and should be better designed and run so as to have at least a fighting chance of sniffing out those who come here who do pose a danger and may enter specifically to do so - as the French used to complain about our govt. and 'secret services' turning a blind eye to many known agitators/potential plotters back in the 90s and early 2000s. It won't ever be failsafe but given our seemingly ready ability to produce our own homegrown jihaddists that ought not to be a block.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff