End Detention of Asylum seekers and allow them legal representation

Asylum seekers should not be treated like criminals and are in particular danger whilst in detention.  An asylum seeker can be anybody from a small child upwards.  It is therefore wrong to refuse them legal representation and lock them up.

Why is this idea important?

Asylum seekers should not be treated like criminals and are in particular danger whilst in detention.  An asylum seeker can be anybody from a small child upwards.  It is therefore wrong to refuse them legal representation and lock them up.

REPEAL THE RULES THAT MAKE VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS DESTITUTE

Our asylum system is a mess and certainly breaches many of our obligations under international law.

People have a right to claim asylum and to have their claims properly considered. The grounds for being granted asylum are tightly defined and include torture, persecution etc because of one's ethnicity,m religion, political affiliations etc.

UKBA has an appalling record for being extraordinarily slow and making demonstrably wrong decisions based on prejudice, ignorance and failure to acknowledge authoritative international evidence. Decision letters naming the  worng country are commonplace as are decisions that ignore overwhelming evidence of torture.

Against this background it is not surprising that there are so many appeals. 

The other fact that is seldom appreciated is that, even if a decision has been made to remove ,this cannot always happen. There may be a dispute about country of origin. The other country may refuse to accept. Most commonly there are many circumstances in which, although asylum has been refused, even the UK (and both this govt and the previous one are equally heartless) recognises that return is unsafe.

Yet whatever the circumstances people who have reached the end of the process have their access to benefits removed. The consequence is that destitute asylum seekers, many of them victims of persecution, violence, even torture, many suffering mental health problems, are at the mercy of friends for the most basic needs. Many sleep rough and some have to prostitute themselves.

It is appalling that a so-called civilised country can treat people this way. Benefits (and they are very stingy) should continue until removal. More importantly, ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WORK. This would benefit UK, because people would be less dependent on benefit, and it would benefit the people concerned, many of whom are well educated: they want to make a contribution; it would improve their mental health and improve integration. The only reason why governments would fail to make this change is that, actually, they don't want people to put down any roots at all.

Some people wait years and years (up to 7, maybe longer) for a decision. It is grossly inhumane to refuse people in this bureaucratic nightmare the right to start to make a life for themselves in UK.

Why is this idea important?

Our asylum system is a mess and certainly breaches many of our obligations under international law.

People have a right to claim asylum and to have their claims properly considered. The grounds for being granted asylum are tightly defined and include torture, persecution etc because of one's ethnicity,m religion, political affiliations etc.

UKBA has an appalling record for being extraordinarily slow and making demonstrably wrong decisions based on prejudice, ignorance and failure to acknowledge authoritative international evidence. Decision letters naming the  worng country are commonplace as are decisions that ignore overwhelming evidence of torture.

Against this background it is not surprising that there are so many appeals. 

The other fact that is seldom appreciated is that, even if a decision has been made to remove ,this cannot always happen. There may be a dispute about country of origin. The other country may refuse to accept. Most commonly there are many circumstances in which, although asylum has been refused, even the UK (and both this govt and the previous one are equally heartless) recognises that return is unsafe.

Yet whatever the circumstances people who have reached the end of the process have their access to benefits removed. The consequence is that destitute asylum seekers, many of them victims of persecution, violence, even torture, many suffering mental health problems, are at the mercy of friends for the most basic needs. Many sleep rough and some have to prostitute themselves.

It is appalling that a so-called civilised country can treat people this way. Benefits (and they are very stingy) should continue until removal. More importantly, ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WORK. This would benefit UK, because people would be less dependent on benefit, and it would benefit the people concerned, many of whom are well educated: they want to make a contribution; it would improve their mental health and improve integration. The only reason why governments would fail to make this change is that, actually, they don't want people to put down any roots at all.

Some people wait years and years (up to 7, maybe longer) for a decision. It is grossly inhumane to refuse people in this bureaucratic nightmare the right to start to make a life for themselves in UK.

One law for all, stop making exceptions.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/145877/Free-saunas-and-gym-for-asylum-cases/

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/188824/Asylum-seekers-given-free-gym-and-swimming

Yet another example of asylum seekers getting special treatment. If the government is constantly going to brag about equality and being fair then please practice what you preach.

Why is this idea important?

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/145877/Free-saunas-and-gym-for-asylum-cases/

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/188824/Asylum-seekers-given-free-gym-and-swimming

Yet another example of asylum seekers getting special treatment. If the government is constantly going to brag about equality and being fair then please practice what you preach.

Illegal Immigrants – they are not Asymlum Seekers

A true asylum seeker will ask for asymlum at the first safe country they reach and stay there.  Those that come here are illegal immigrants usually here for benefits and should be treated as such.

They should be housed in a secure area such as disused army or air force accommodation whilst their claims are assessed and not given housing which is desperately needed by the indigenous population and where they can simply disappear.  The applications should be dealt with speedily and priority given to commonwealth citizens and those whose skills we need.  Those who are not allowed to stay should be deported immediately without recourse to legal aid to fight the decision. 

Those who are allowed to stay should be given basic accommodation and NOT housed in large properties in areas such as Kensington.  Their benefits should be basic and should not include cars and other such items which other people have to work for.

Why is this idea important?

A true asylum seeker will ask for asymlum at the first safe country they reach and stay there.  Those that come here are illegal immigrants usually here for benefits and should be treated as such.

They should be housed in a secure area such as disused army or air force accommodation whilst their claims are assessed and not given housing which is desperately needed by the indigenous population and where they can simply disappear.  The applications should be dealt with speedily and priority given to commonwealth citizens and those whose skills we need.  Those who are not allowed to stay should be deported immediately without recourse to legal aid to fight the decision. 

Those who are allowed to stay should be given basic accommodation and NOT housed in large properties in areas such as Kensington.  Their benefits should be basic and should not include cars and other such items which other people have to work for.

Amend Asylum Laws

There are numerous posts about asylum, each involve 'Remove all' or 'Allow all'.
We must allow asylum, but we must  regulate it properly.

The asylum laws were made to provide shelter to those persecuted for political or religious reasons in their own country.  This has, over the years, been extended to cover any aspect that does not fit with ones own society.
 

The understanding of the asylum system was that a seeker would present themself at the first 'friendly' port of call and declare their intent ro seek asylum.

I would say that in all instances of anyone seeking asylum in the uk, they have travelled across Europe until reaching UK, thus by default proving that their intent to seek asylum is purely financial and not any other reason.  As UK is, to all intents and purpose, an island, any asylum seeker must arrive on ship or plane.

Their country of depature must be their own country or a country that is not friendly to their life style (religious, political or sexual) both countries requiring them to seek asylum due to their circumstances.    Arrival from any other country, by definition, removed their asylum status.

It is perfectly logical that a French person may seek asylum for his political views, as they can only each here by ship or plane, but a German can only claim asylum if they arrive from Germany by plane, if they go through France, then they must seek asylum from France, unless France is not 'friendly'.

As we are governed by European Law, then any European country is friendly, therefore no one of any nationality should be arriving from any European country to claim asylum.

No one should be seeking asylum that has lived here for more than a month, as to claim asylum the inention, as defined by treaty, must be made at the earliest oppurtunity.

And a month in UK is far more than enough unless one is kept captive, in which case, this would need yo be proved.

Thus any asylum seeker entering from another European or friendly country must be refused  entry and returned to their country of departure. 

Any person seeking asylum after 1 month in the UK, should, without question be returned to their country of origin unless they can prove they could not declare their intention earlier due to no fault of their own.

Any asylum seeker arriving with out identification papers should be detained until they can be identified and their application processed.

It is almost inconceivable that a person arrives in UK without any form of indentification after travelling by air ship or land.  Lack of identification is a clear sign of false intent.

This is not a radical suggestion , it reinforces the already existing system , but in a manner fair to all.

Bear in mind that once a seeker has gained asylum in a Eurpoean country they can then, if they wish, travel to UK as permitted under the EU laws.  So why doesn't it happen…because UK is seen as and is genuinely a soft touch in Europe.

In most if not all instances, asylum seekers are in fact illegal immigrants as many do not arrive directly from their country of origin.

 

Why is this idea important?

There are numerous posts about asylum, each involve 'Remove all' or 'Allow all'.
We must allow asylum, but we must  regulate it properly.

The asylum laws were made to provide shelter to those persecuted for political or religious reasons in their own country.  This has, over the years, been extended to cover any aspect that does not fit with ones own society.
 

The understanding of the asylum system was that a seeker would present themself at the first 'friendly' port of call and declare their intent ro seek asylum.

I would say that in all instances of anyone seeking asylum in the uk, they have travelled across Europe until reaching UK, thus by default proving that their intent to seek asylum is purely financial and not any other reason.  As UK is, to all intents and purpose, an island, any asylum seeker must arrive on ship or plane.

Their country of depature must be their own country or a country that is not friendly to their life style (religious, political or sexual) both countries requiring them to seek asylum due to their circumstances.    Arrival from any other country, by definition, removed their asylum status.

It is perfectly logical that a French person may seek asylum for his political views, as they can only each here by ship or plane, but a German can only claim asylum if they arrive from Germany by plane, if they go through France, then they must seek asylum from France, unless France is not 'friendly'.

As we are governed by European Law, then any European country is friendly, therefore no one of any nationality should be arriving from any European country to claim asylum.

No one should be seeking asylum that has lived here for more than a month, as to claim asylum the inention, as defined by treaty, must be made at the earliest oppurtunity.

And a month in UK is far more than enough unless one is kept captive, in which case, this would need yo be proved.

Thus any asylum seeker entering from another European or friendly country must be refused  entry and returned to their country of departure. 

Any person seeking asylum after 1 month in the UK, should, without question be returned to their country of origin unless they can prove they could not declare their intention earlier due to no fault of their own.

Any asylum seeker arriving with out identification papers should be detained until they can be identified and their application processed.

It is almost inconceivable that a person arrives in UK without any form of indentification after travelling by air ship or land.  Lack of identification is a clear sign of false intent.

This is not a radical suggestion , it reinforces the already existing system , but in a manner fair to all.

Bear in mind that once a seeker has gained asylum in a Eurpoean country they can then, if they wish, travel to UK as permitted under the EU laws.  So why doesn't it happen…because UK is seen as and is genuinely a soft touch in Europe.

In most if not all instances, asylum seekers are in fact illegal immigrants as many do not arrive directly from their country of origin.

 

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.

Don’t introduce the English test for spouses of UK citizens

The Government plans to introduce an English test before a spouse of a UK citizen is allowed a visa to enter Britain. We already have a strict citizenship system that includes language proficiency.

We should not introduce this costly and ineffectual test – it is yet more red tape.

Why is this idea important?

The Government plans to introduce an English test before a spouse of a UK citizen is allowed a visa to enter Britain. We already have a strict citizenship system that includes language proficiency.

We should not introduce this costly and ineffectual test – it is yet more red tape.

Scrap Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act was basically fair to all until the great Blair signed us up to the amendment/greater involvement in 2006/2007. It is absolutely ridiculous the way that the HRA is now and that it is used in the way it is these days to escape punishment/deportation and many other instances that have enraged the British public over the last few years. the Act itself needs watering down/amending so it back the sensible HRA that it used to be and needs changing NOW!

Why is this idea important?

The Human Rights Act was basically fair to all until the great Blair signed us up to the amendment/greater involvement in 2006/2007. It is absolutely ridiculous the way that the HRA is now and that it is used in the way it is these days to escape punishment/deportation and many other instances that have enraged the British public over the last few years. the Act itself needs watering down/amending so it back the sensible HRA that it used to be and needs changing NOW!

Repatriate asylum seekers

Majority of asylum seekers are in fact economic migrations jumping queues, seeking access to welfare, healthcare, free education and british passport. 

These people should only be given termed stay and partial access to welfare, certainly not british passport.  They should leave once war stops in their homeland. 

They should go back to rebuild their own country rather than playing cuckoos.

Why is this idea important?

Majority of asylum seekers are in fact economic migrations jumping queues, seeking access to welfare, healthcare, free education and british passport. 

These people should only be given termed stay and partial access to welfare, certainly not british passport.  They should leave once war stops in their homeland. 

They should go back to rebuild their own country rather than playing cuckoos.

Allow all Asylum Seekers With Children Born in the UK to Stay

All asylum seekers with children born in the UK should be granted full leave to remain in the UK without exception. Further the practice of incarcerating children in asylum detention centres such as Dungavel must end.

Why is this idea important?

All asylum seekers with children born in the UK should be granted full leave to remain in the UK without exception. Further the practice of incarcerating children in asylum detention centres such as Dungavel must end.

Ban asylum seekers right to appeal.

Asylum seekers who are refused should not be able to constantly appeal the decision.

If they are refused, their case has been looked at, the onus should be upon them to provide sufficient reason for their remaining here in the first instance.

Why is this idea important?

Asylum seekers who are refused should not be able to constantly appeal the decision.

If they are refused, their case has been looked at, the onus should be upon them to provide sufficient reason for their remaining here in the first instance.

Reinstate the right to work for people awaiting a decision on their asylum claim

The removal of the right for those awaiting asylum decisions, in 2002, has exacerbated the enormous difficulties faced both individually by people seeking asylum, but also by services attempting to support them.

Work provides a sense of productivity and belonging essential in enabling individuals to maintain essential work and personal skills and integrate into their host community,   instead people are left feeling isolated and unproductive.  

The majority of refugees come from countries with an extremely strong work ethic, and they feel humiliated by their enforced reliance on benefits.  

There is a growing body of evidence showing that opportunity to work enables the individual to maintian their own well being, contribute to the wider society, reduce the cost to the tax payer and challenge damaging stereotypes.

Why is this idea important?

The removal of the right for those awaiting asylum decisions, in 2002, has exacerbated the enormous difficulties faced both individually by people seeking asylum, but also by services attempting to support them.

Work provides a sense of productivity and belonging essential in enabling individuals to maintain essential work and personal skills and integrate into their host community,   instead people are left feeling isolated and unproductive.  

The majority of refugees come from countries with an extremely strong work ethic, and they feel humiliated by their enforced reliance on benefits.  

There is a growing body of evidence showing that opportunity to work enables the individual to maintian their own well being, contribute to the wider society, reduce the cost to the tax payer and challenge damaging stereotypes.

Ammend asylum laws

To many people from outside the EU come here and claim asylum. They pass through many other safe countries heading for our shores as we are an easy touch and becasue they speak English (sometimes).

We need to ammend the asylum laws so that:

1) A person can only claim asylum once. They must give DNA sample on claiming asylum which is then checked to make sure they have not claimed before. If they have, they are to be ejected from UK shores within 12 hours with no appeal.

2) A person should have their asylum claim dealt within within 1 calendar month. If the country is deemed safe, they are returned without question. If they wish to appeal they do so at their countries British embassy/counsulate.

3) If they have traveled via other EU countiries to the UK, they are ejected to the country of entry without right to appeal. If France suddenly had a load of illegal asylum seekers dumped back on their shores the EU would quickly change their aslyum laws to stop it. As we have the issue they do not care as we are not seen as "one of the boys".

4) Only allow one appeal to be held by a senior and specialy trained judge. This will be the final answer and if aslyum is not granted the person(s) are deported within 12 hours back to their country of origin.

5) Stop ALL benefits and rights to homes to asylum seekers. They should be detained in centres until their case is heard. If they get granted asylum they should be put on courses to force them to learn english, and skills which can help our country – with a requirement they are in work within 6 months. Failure to do so should result is no benefits or aid from the goverment.

This will stop the UK being seen as a soft spot and a place where anyone can get benifits/houses etc for free.

Why is this idea important?

To many people from outside the EU come here and claim asylum. They pass through many other safe countries heading for our shores as we are an easy touch and becasue they speak English (sometimes).

We need to ammend the asylum laws so that:

1) A person can only claim asylum once. They must give DNA sample on claiming asylum which is then checked to make sure they have not claimed before. If they have, they are to be ejected from UK shores within 12 hours with no appeal.

2) A person should have their asylum claim dealt within within 1 calendar month. If the country is deemed safe, they are returned without question. If they wish to appeal they do so at their countries British embassy/counsulate.

3) If they have traveled via other EU countiries to the UK, they are ejected to the country of entry without right to appeal. If France suddenly had a load of illegal asylum seekers dumped back on their shores the EU would quickly change their aslyum laws to stop it. As we have the issue they do not care as we are not seen as "one of the boys".

4) Only allow one appeal to be held by a senior and specialy trained judge. This will be the final answer and if aslyum is not granted the person(s) are deported within 12 hours back to their country of origin.

5) Stop ALL benefits and rights to homes to asylum seekers. They should be detained in centres until their case is heard. If they get granted asylum they should be put on courses to force them to learn english, and skills which can help our country – with a requirement they are in work within 6 months. Failure to do so should result is no benefits or aid from the goverment.

This will stop the UK being seen as a soft spot and a place where anyone can get benifits/houses etc for free.

YOU MUST SEEK ASYLUM IN THE FIRST SAFE COUNTRY YOU COME TO

You must seek asylum in the first safe country you come to.

Lets implement this law.

It is a European law that was set up to prevent the problems that this fine country has had with imagration.

Think about how much money this country would save if we implemented this law.

The law was set up to stop the camps in calais where illegal immagrints gather to run through into our country.

Why?

Because the last time i checked France was a safe country.

Infact to get to the UK through Europe these people have to travel thousands of miles through europe to soft touch britain as we are affectionatly known throughout the world.

The french dont have a massive problem with immagration, neither do the germans the dutch, the reason being soft touch britain will look after these people better than any other country in europe.

I am all for genuine illegal immigrints who are fleeing pursecusion to be allowed to stay in the UK. As long as we are the first safe country they come to.

So what i am proposing is simple. STICK TO THE LAW. If you traveled here through Europe then you are more interested in getting to Britain than fleeing pursecusion as the french DO NOT pursecute anyone.

So if they come through our airports and they can prove this let them stay if they are genuine. If not dont.

This will save this country an absolute fortune and give some extra money to the good people of this country who pay their taxes all their lives and get treated like second class citizens behind ungenuine asylum seekers who only want Britain not just to stay alive.

Why is this idea important?

You must seek asylum in the first safe country you come to.

Lets implement this law.

It is a European law that was set up to prevent the problems that this fine country has had with imagration.

Think about how much money this country would save if we implemented this law.

The law was set up to stop the camps in calais where illegal immagrints gather to run through into our country.

Why?

Because the last time i checked France was a safe country.

Infact to get to the UK through Europe these people have to travel thousands of miles through europe to soft touch britain as we are affectionatly known throughout the world.

The french dont have a massive problem with immagration, neither do the germans the dutch, the reason being soft touch britain will look after these people better than any other country in europe.

I am all for genuine illegal immigrints who are fleeing pursecusion to be allowed to stay in the UK. As long as we are the first safe country they come to.

So what i am proposing is simple. STICK TO THE LAW. If you traveled here through Europe then you are more interested in getting to Britain than fleeing pursecusion as the french DO NOT pursecute anyone.

So if they come through our airports and they can prove this let them stay if they are genuine. If not dont.

This will save this country an absolute fortune and give some extra money to the good people of this country who pay their taxes all their lives and get treated like second class citizens behind ungenuine asylum seekers who only want Britain not just to stay alive.