stop giving non working immigrants benefits and houses

the country is ruined. Why destroy it completely and bankrupt it further by giving handouts to people who come here for no other reason than to get free mloney.. Look after your own people….. hows that for a radical idea.?? then maybe our country could improve again instead of plumetting completely.

Why is this idea important?

the country is ruined. Why destroy it completely and bankrupt it further by giving handouts to people who come here for no other reason than to get free mloney.. Look after your own people….. hows that for a radical idea.?? then maybe our country could improve again instead of plumetting completely.

Probationary citizen status

Asylum seekers etc… should be required to sign up to a new class of citizenship, namely a probationer.The granting of full UK citizenship is discretionary after a minimum period of 5 years and would require the assent of the police (with no right of appeal) . As a Probationer, they will understand that shoudl they be convicted of any serious crime that their rights to UK citizenship would be forever revoked and that they (and their family unit) would be immediately deported, never to be allowed back into the UK. We should take both their fingerprints and DNA and store indefinitely.

Why is this idea important?

Asylum seekers etc… should be required to sign up to a new class of citizenship, namely a probationer.The granting of full UK citizenship is discretionary after a minimum period of 5 years and would require the assent of the police (with no right of appeal) . As a Probationer, they will understand that shoudl they be convicted of any serious crime that their rights to UK citizenship would be forever revoked and that they (and their family unit) would be immediately deported, never to be allowed back into the UK. We should take both their fingerprints and DNA and store indefinitely.

Allow Asylum seekers to work until application processed

Give Failed Asylum seekers a Temporary NI number and allow them to work which would help reduce crime and the benefit cost until their application is processed.

Currently  Asylum seekers are entitled to claim support
from the UKBA. This is  £42.16 per
week for a person aged 25 and over, £33.39
per week for a person aged 18 to 24 and
£66.13 per week for couples.

A pregnant woman and children under three can claim
an extra £3 a week. A baby under one year
can claim an extra £5 a week.

Why is this idea important?

Give Failed Asylum seekers a Temporary NI number and allow them to work which would help reduce crime and the benefit cost until their application is processed.

Currently  Asylum seekers are entitled to claim support
from the UKBA. This is  £42.16 per
week for a person aged 25 and over, £33.39
per week for a person aged 18 to 24 and
£66.13 per week for couples.

A pregnant woman and children under three can claim
an extra £3 a week. A baby under one year
can claim an extra £5 a week.

Border Control should be abolished…

How big and wealthy a nation is is determined by the people in the nation. The United Kingdom is one of the Great countries God had really Blessed. The reason why God Blessed this nation is to take care of other nations on earth. They are the colonizing nation according to God. They have done a great deal of job colonizing nations and other things to mention a few. Things are terribly bad in most of the nations now and people are seeking greener pastures away from their homes. Why then must the nation who we all look up to as the only surviving hope turn around and stop people from coming in? Its very bad. I think UK should look into the border control laws and lastly the people who are already in the UK working and contributing to the economy of the country should be granted amnesty if they can provide proofs that they ve been in the country and have been contributing to the system.

Why is this idea important?

How big and wealthy a nation is is determined by the people in the nation. The United Kingdom is one of the Great countries God had really Blessed. The reason why God Blessed this nation is to take care of other nations on earth. They are the colonizing nation according to God. They have done a great deal of job colonizing nations and other things to mention a few. Things are terribly bad in most of the nations now and people are seeking greener pastures away from their homes. Why then must the nation who we all look up to as the only surviving hope turn around and stop people from coming in? Its very bad. I think UK should look into the border control laws and lastly the people who are already in the UK working and contributing to the economy of the country should be granted amnesty if they can provide proofs that they ve been in the country and have been contributing to the system.

Applying asylum rules consistently

 

Torture.

The UK Government, past and present, seems ambivalent about torture: both our involvement in it; and the degree which we are prepared to acknowledge its existence in other states. I am greatly encouraged by early statements but appreciate words can be cheap.

 The Coalition Agreement said “We will stop the deportation of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution”.]. This was soon followed by the recent unanimous judgment from the UK Supreme Court ruling that homosexual asylum seekers should be granted refugee status if going home would result in them being forced to conceal their sexuality. This raises interesting issues which will without doubt come before the courts shortly. Are there only certain categories of people to whom imprisonment and torture is more risky ?

 I have read the Home Office guidance to caseworkers assessing asylum claims:    “If an applicant has already been subjected to persecution or serious harm, or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules makes it clear that decision makers should regard this as “a serious indication of the person’s well founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there are good reasons, to suggest that such ill-treatment will not be repeated”.  I am trying to make sense of the Coalition statement, the High Court Judgement, The Home Office Guidance, and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: “The absolute right to be free from torture and ill-treatment”….in the light of the experience of the often disregarded expert evidence by The Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture among others.

By what date is the UK Border Agency required to take note of the above ? Is there an acceptable time-lag during which time torture “does not count”? Is torture only recognised as dangerous to the individual in certain contexts? Is there a gap in between government thinking and operational management ? If there is, who is responsible for ensuring consistency of approach ?

In this, [as in all spheres of Government]: who should be responsible for ensuring clarity of policy and implementation. Could there be clearly published details of who; when; who is responsible for monitoring; how to provide feedback.

Why is this idea important?

 

Torture.

The UK Government, past and present, seems ambivalent about torture: both our involvement in it; and the degree which we are prepared to acknowledge its existence in other states. I am greatly encouraged by early statements but appreciate words can be cheap.

 The Coalition Agreement said “We will stop the deportation of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution”.]. This was soon followed by the recent unanimous judgment from the UK Supreme Court ruling that homosexual asylum seekers should be granted refugee status if going home would result in them being forced to conceal their sexuality. This raises interesting issues which will without doubt come before the courts shortly. Are there only certain categories of people to whom imprisonment and torture is more risky ?

 I have read the Home Office guidance to caseworkers assessing asylum claims:    “If an applicant has already been subjected to persecution or serious harm, or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules makes it clear that decision makers should regard this as “a serious indication of the person’s well founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there are good reasons, to suggest that such ill-treatment will not be repeated”.  I am trying to make sense of the Coalition statement, the High Court Judgement, The Home Office Guidance, and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: “The absolute right to be free from torture and ill-treatment”….in the light of the experience of the often disregarded expert evidence by The Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture among others.

By what date is the UK Border Agency required to take note of the above ? Is there an acceptable time-lag during which time torture “does not count”? Is torture only recognised as dangerous to the individual in certain contexts? Is there a gap in between government thinking and operational management ? If there is, who is responsible for ensuring consistency of approach ?

In this, [as in all spheres of Government]: who should be responsible for ensuring clarity of policy and implementation. Could there be clearly published details of who; when; who is responsible for monitoring; how to provide feedback.

Deport suspected terrorists despite human rights act

It is crazy that we can't deport people who are believed to be terrorists and who are not British citizens.  The justification is that the country to which we would deport them (their own country) would abuse.

Supporters of this act claim that rights are indivisible and that we cannot pick choose when to apply rights or to whom they apply.  However the principle of doing exactly this is enshrined within the ECHR itself in respect of rights to personal freedom and imprisonment for offences. so it is clear that the principle is accepted – the argument that you can't pick and choose therefore is defeated by the ECHR itself.

Why is this idea important?

It is crazy that we can't deport people who are believed to be terrorists and who are not British citizens.  The justification is that the country to which we would deport them (their own country) would abuse.

Supporters of this act claim that rights are indivisible and that we cannot pick choose when to apply rights or to whom they apply.  However the principle of doing exactly this is enshrined within the ECHR itself in respect of rights to personal freedom and imprisonment for offences. so it is clear that the principle is accepted – the argument that you can't pick and choose therefore is defeated by the ECHR itself.

Abolish the Supreme Court.

This is a creature of the Blair / Brown NuLabour years and should be abolished along with all it's 'rulings'.

It's main role was to hear appeals from courts in the United Kingdom concerning commercial disputes, family matters, judicial review claims against public authorities and issues under the Human Rights Act. (Ah, the good 'ol catch all HRA).

They now seem to be outreaching their authority. 

"Homosexuals who cannot live an open life in their own countries without fear of persecution should be entitled to asylum in Britain, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100707/tuk-uk-britain-gay-fa6b408.html

 

 

Why is this idea important?

This is a creature of the Blair / Brown NuLabour years and should be abolished along with all it's 'rulings'.

It's main role was to hear appeals from courts in the United Kingdom concerning commercial disputes, family matters, judicial review claims against public authorities and issues under the Human Rights Act. (Ah, the good 'ol catch all HRA).

They now seem to be outreaching their authority. 

"Homosexuals who cannot live an open life in their own countries without fear of persecution should be entitled to asylum in Britain, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100707/tuk-uk-britain-gay-fa6b408.html

 

 

Amnesty

Give Amnesty to refused asylum seekers/ illegal immigrants who have lived in the UK for more than ten years. Only those with knowledge/skills (NVQ Level 3 and above) and speak English should be considered for Amnesty and they should be made to work in certain areas of our society where it is difficult to recruit from within the UK and the EU. For example: the Health and Social Care industry where there is a shortage of carers.

Why is this idea important?

Give Amnesty to refused asylum seekers/ illegal immigrants who have lived in the UK for more than ten years. Only those with knowledge/skills (NVQ Level 3 and above) and speak English should be considered for Amnesty and they should be made to work in certain areas of our society where it is difficult to recruit from within the UK and the EU. For example: the Health and Social Care industry where there is a shortage of carers.

Deport convicted criminals automatically

Immigrants / Asylum seekers / non UK nationals when convicted of a serious crime or as serial offender of lesser crimes should be deported along with their dependant families as undesirables.  They should all be fingerprinted / retinas scanned to ensure they do not re-enter the country.  

 

Why is this idea important?

Immigrants / Asylum seekers / non UK nationals when convicted of a serious crime or as serial offender of lesser crimes should be deported along with their dependant families as undesirables.  They should all be fingerprinted / retinas scanned to ensure they do not re-enter the country.  

 

immigration must stop

stop all immigration and attend to our indiginous problems first.  only if this country was practically 100% perfect should we allow anyone in…the simply ad to the problems

benefits

NHS health issues

queues

crime

education

civil unrest

etc etc

Why is this idea important?

stop all immigration and attend to our indiginous problems first.  only if this country was practically 100% perfect should we allow anyone in…the simply ad to the problems

benefits

NHS health issues

queues

crime

education

civil unrest

etc etc

TAX CONCESSIONS

IS IT TRUE THAT ANYONE WHO IS ALLOWED OR WISHES TO STAY IN THIS COUNTRY, ARE ALLOWED TAX CONCESSIONS,  WHEN THEY FIRST ARRIVE TO ALLOW THEM TO SETTLE IN "COMFORTABLY" ?? WHILE ADJUSTING.

Why is this idea important?

IS IT TRUE THAT ANYONE WHO IS ALLOWED OR WISHES TO STAY IN THIS COUNTRY, ARE ALLOWED TAX CONCESSIONS,  WHEN THEY FIRST ARRIVE TO ALLOW THEM TO SETTLE IN "COMFORTABLY" ?? WHILE ADJUSTING.

Protecting Asylum Seekers

I would firstly improve the quality of decision making in the Home Office/UKBA. The first step to this would be to take the 'Solihull Pilot' nationwide. This is where each asylum seeker is guaranteed a legal rep, someone who understands what asylum is about, as those arriving in a foreign country have no idea. The legal rep and the UK Border Agency decision maker narrow down the reasons for claiming asylum, and the legal points.

This has proved to be a better system, and cheaper in the long run. Yes, more people are granted asylum at initial stage, but less people are then appealing, clogging up valuable, and expensive court time. The UKBA can then get on with arranging removals, as when they don't, people establish a family and private life in the UK, meaning they cannot be removed at a later stage.

The costs saved from the lack of subsequent applications (and the savings when legal reps have to refuse funding to the asylum seekers, meaning none of this "legal aid profteering", means the system more than pays for itself, and will create budget savings that will go elsewhere.

I would also allow asylum seekers to work. I would not allow this immediately, but after 6 months, instead of the current 1 year, whilst they are awaiting a decision. This co-incides with the UKBA target of concluding a case within 6 months. Therefore, there is a double whammy if the UKBA inefficiencies materialise. The applicant will not have to apply for work permission, it will be automatically triggered by the computer systems issuing confirmation of the right to work.

Whilst a decision is pending, I would make language classes compulsory. If asylum seekers are in accommodation provided for them, then attendance at classes can be compulsory. If they speak English already, a tutor can sign them off as having passed the class. For those that get a decision whilst still taking the class, they have to keep attending whilst in accommodation provided by the state. If accommodation is withdrawn, then attendance is at their own choice. Classes are provided for free, to assist in helping people understand the English language, which will help them to integrate into society.

Finally, I would ensure that legal providers are funded adequately for the system, and that when the problem is delays from the government, I would ensure that interim payments are made on cases which have not been concluded within a certain time frame from the application being made (say quarterly).

Oh, and bring back Refugee and Migrant Justice.

Why is this idea important?

I would firstly improve the quality of decision making in the Home Office/UKBA. The first step to this would be to take the 'Solihull Pilot' nationwide. This is where each asylum seeker is guaranteed a legal rep, someone who understands what asylum is about, as those arriving in a foreign country have no idea. The legal rep and the UK Border Agency decision maker narrow down the reasons for claiming asylum, and the legal points.

This has proved to be a better system, and cheaper in the long run. Yes, more people are granted asylum at initial stage, but less people are then appealing, clogging up valuable, and expensive court time. The UKBA can then get on with arranging removals, as when they don't, people establish a family and private life in the UK, meaning they cannot be removed at a later stage.

The costs saved from the lack of subsequent applications (and the savings when legal reps have to refuse funding to the asylum seekers, meaning none of this "legal aid profteering", means the system more than pays for itself, and will create budget savings that will go elsewhere.

I would also allow asylum seekers to work. I would not allow this immediately, but after 6 months, instead of the current 1 year, whilst they are awaiting a decision. This co-incides with the UKBA target of concluding a case within 6 months. Therefore, there is a double whammy if the UKBA inefficiencies materialise. The applicant will not have to apply for work permission, it will be automatically triggered by the computer systems issuing confirmation of the right to work.

Whilst a decision is pending, I would make language classes compulsory. If asylum seekers are in accommodation provided for them, then attendance at classes can be compulsory. If they speak English already, a tutor can sign them off as having passed the class. For those that get a decision whilst still taking the class, they have to keep attending whilst in accommodation provided by the state. If accommodation is withdrawn, then attendance is at their own choice. Classes are provided for free, to assist in helping people understand the English language, which will help them to integrate into society.

Finally, I would ensure that legal providers are funded adequately for the system, and that when the problem is delays from the government, I would ensure that interim payments are made on cases which have not been concluded within a certain time frame from the application being made (say quarterly).

Oh, and bring back Refugee and Migrant Justice.

Allow Asylum Seekers to Work as soon as they arrive in country

Placing restrictions on Asylum Seekers regarding employment creates divisions and doesn't allow the person to make a legal  contribution to the society in which they have chosen to live.

Why is this idea important?

Placing restrictions on Asylum Seekers regarding employment creates divisions and doesn't allow the person to make a legal  contribution to the society in which they have chosen to live.

UK has a legal obligation to take its share of asylum seekers.

There are no bogus asylum seekers. This is a media conspired notion. The majority of Asylum seekers are fleeing countries that are at war or being invaded and poverty. If we stop invading countries and address worldwide poverty ther will be almost no need for asylum laws. UK invaded most of the world  ie Asian, Africa and many others. Remember your history of Colonialism. It is not possible for people to say "I did not do that" but most have inherited the notion of socalled superiority. 

Why is this idea important?

There are no bogus asylum seekers. This is a media conspired notion. The majority of Asylum seekers are fleeing countries that are at war or being invaded and poverty. If we stop invading countries and address worldwide poverty ther will be almost no need for asylum laws. UK invaded most of the world  ie Asian, Africa and many others. Remember your history of Colonialism. It is not possible for people to say "I did not do that" but most have inherited the notion of socalled superiority. 

Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum Seekers

The ‘The Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005’ provide for failed asylum seekers to be forced to undertake community work in exchange for accomodation. These regulations have never been enforced and so should repealed.

Why is this idea important?

The ‘The Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005’ provide for failed asylum seekers to be forced to undertake community work in exchange for accomodation. These regulations have never been enforced and so should repealed.

No Extradition Without Testing In UK Courts

I have a very comon name and in certain countries, My passport is always queried.  Nothing untoward has actually happened, but it does worry me that I can be extradited from the UK without this being tested in the UK Courts.  We have had several cases recently, where people have or are being extrradited on the flimsiest of evidence, that all my legal friends assure me would be thrown out in any UK Court. In some cases these are for offences that don't exist in the UK.

Why is this idea important?

I have a very comon name and in certain countries, My passport is always queried.  Nothing untoward has actually happened, but it does worry me that I can be extradited from the UK without this being tested in the UK Courts.  We have had several cases recently, where people have or are being extrradited on the flimsiest of evidence, that all my legal friends assure me would be thrown out in any UK Court. In some cases these are for offences that don't exist in the UK.