|
Don't
deport me, I''ve got a headache
Scores
of failed asylum seekers are being allowed to stay in
Britain simply by making up bogus personal problems, claims
a Whitehall whistleblower. Anwar Rizvi says excuses include
pretending to be depressed or suffering from minor ailments
such as headaches. Others claim to be gays, saying they
will face persedution if they are deported.
The
whistleblower also alleges that thousands of failed asylum
seekers are deliberately stringing out their cases in
the knowledge that they will be granted ''exceptional
leave to remain'.
Mr
Rizvi, 46, an interpreter employed by the Department for
Constitutional Affairs in the asylum appeal courts, said
that the trick was to drag cases on as long as possible.
By clogging up the system he claims, the Home Office is
far more likely to offer the claimants leave to remain.
Mr Rizvi, who has worked as an interpreter in Punjabi
and Urdu for six years, came to Britain from Pakistan
as a teenager. He said he expected to lose his right to
sit as an interpreter.
His
case is similar to that of Steve Moxon - the Sheffield
immigratin official whose revelations about the rubber
stamping of work permits for Eastern Europeans led to
the resignation of Home Office minister Beverley Hughes.
Mr Moxon was sacked and is taking the Home Office to an
employment tribunal.
By
Ben Taylor, Crime Correspondent, Daily Mail- November
15, 2004
|
Asylum
chaos
500
FOREIGN CRIMINALS FREED EARLY
Another
100,000 asylum seekers granted amnesty to stay on
UK
handout funds an ostrich farm - for failed asylum seekers
Why
can't we deport evil double killer, asks judge
400,000+
backlog of failed asylum seekers
Reid
U-turn returns foreigners to 'open door' jail
80,000
failed asylum seekers our inept Home Office can't be bothered
to track down
113
years to clear backlog of failed asylum seekers
Reid's
pledge fiasco over 450,000 failed asylum seekers in UK
Foreign
villains roam our streets
Lunatics
STILL in charge of the asylum
No
one will carry the can for prisoner fiasco
Labour's
foreign criminal crisis
6,000
failed asylum seekers been in Britain so long they apply AGAIN
to stay
We'll
continue to pay in blood and the peace of mind of ordinary people
until we come to our senses over the loss of control of our
borders
What
kind of system lets a jailed foreign rapist claim asylum to
avoid deportation?
Why
can't we simply deport all who abuse our laws, our hospitality
and our citizens?
It's
not only the foreign criminals who've vanished, but also any
pretence that Britain controls its borders, or, indeed, its
very destiny
There
is only so much any society can take
Lost
army of Britain's failed asylum seekers
Labour's
asylum failure, by judge married to a Minister
Asylum
crisis: amnesty deal for 15,000 becomes stampede
Why
we'll never win the war on terror
Asylum
system 'out of control'
2,000
asylum rejects come back each year
"We'll
miss our asylum targets" Labour
admits failure over expulsion policy it trumpeted
Blair
won't hit target on clearing asylum backlog
In
one week, just 199 failed asylum seekers go home
One
in 100 (of total UK population) here illegally
Asylum
cheats will take 21 years to send home
For
asylum seeker, read bogus student
Asylum
housing bill hits £3billion in Blair's time
Immigration
scandalously out of control
One
in 100 (of total UK population) here illegally
Immigration
& demonising of decency
Illegal
migrants given 48 hours to vanish
Only
one out of 15 failed asylum seekers deported
One
in 20 asylum seekers has HIV (treatment can cost £150,000
each)
Howard:
Aids & TB tests for migrants - Clarke:
want MORE refugees
Just
107 convicted in crackdown on asylum seekers
It's
a shambles
Letter
from John David Emery, Warwick. - Daily Mail, Feb. 9, 2005
Having
just retired from the UK Immigration Service after 34 years,
I know why our immigration control is such a shambles. 'Immigration
authorities' are blamed, by which, I assume, is meant civil
servants. In fact, those we should blame are our MPs who make
the rules that civil servants have to implement.
We
once had an embarkation control system to check that visitors
left on time, but it was abolished by Mike O'Brien, the first
Labour minister for immigration just after Labour came to power
in 1997. Parliament's excellent website, (research paper 99/16)
records a speech made by Mike O'Brien on March 16, 1998, specifically
announcing this decision - to save £3 million.
The
UK Immigration Service was once the most efficient, most effective
and cheapest in the world until it was remodelled by the Government
into the current politically correct, ineffective shambles.
Immigration staff are dedicated to doing a good job, but their
efforts are continually frustrated by the incompetence of those
they serve.
The
£3 million saving made in 1998 looks pretty silly when
compared with the real cost we will have to pay to get rid of
the present shambles.
At
last the courage
I
agree with the Conservative Party's plans for coping
with immigration: a different system is badly needed.
I have a much-loved daughter-in-law and several good
friends who are Asian and Caribbean immigrants. It isn't
racist to be concerned about the numbers who are coming
into this country: our housing, health and education
systems won't be able to cope if things continue as
they are, and this will cause ill-feeling and racial
tension.
Lib
Dem leader Charles Kennedy is wrong: this is not desperation
on the part of the Tories but common sense and in everyone's
best interest.
Letter
from C. M Russell, Windsor, Berks. - Daily Mail, January
25, 2005
|
Your
migration controls would be illegal, EU tells Michael Howard
- Mr
Howard must not be cowed -
And read how Tony Blair thoughtlessly signed away
our right to limit migrants
For
years this Government denied there was an immigration crisis.
Now, as election looms, they've vowed to get tough.Why should
we believe them now? Download
here
Trying
to stem tide of African migrants is futile, says Blair
- Download
in pdf format
Every
year a city the size of Peterborough settles in Britain. It's
NOT racist to say that this can't go on
A
bold step. Now let's have a REAL debate on immigration, says Melanie
Phillips
Howard:
We'll turn back all asylum seekers
- Tories' dramatic pledge puts immigration and asylum at the centre
of the General Election battle
How the
end
of Britain's veto on EU immigration matters will only make
things worse - by Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of MIGRATIONWATCH
UK
A
PM we can rely on - to tell us lies
It
is only a few months since Blair stated - unambiguously
- that the issues of asylum and immigration control would
not be sacrificed to the EU in the same way that
control over taxation, defence and foreign policy would
be handed over. He said they would always remain under
our control.
So
this week, David Blunkett flies to Brussels to sign away
- once and for all - our rights to control the levels
of asylum & immigration.
When
Blair stated that we would not have any tax rises during
this Parliament, we also believed him. The result: we
have had dozens of taxes imposed on us. When Blair said
he would not introduce tuition fees, we still believed
him. But now they are firmly in place.
When
Blair said he would slash the welfare bill, we believed
him. It's now gone up by 50%.
Mind
you, if Blair said he was going to do nothing to stop
MPs abusing their expenses system, I would certainly find
it easy to believe him.
Philip
Codd, Manchester
Letter
to Daily Mail - 27/10/04
|
Asylum
veto fiasco
Britain
agrees to go with EU majority on refugees. But we're in control,
says Blair
BY Paul
Eastham, Deputy Political Editor, Daily Mail, October 25, 2004
Tony
Blair came under ferocious attack yesterday after giving up Britain's
veto on EU asylum policy, then claiming he had achieved 'the best
of both worlds'. The Prime Minister said we still had 'complete
control' - could join actions we liked against illegal immigration,
but opt out of moves which were not in our interests.
Tories
immediately accused him of 'duping' the public. Party leader Michael
Howard said: "Britain will lose control of its borders. Why
can't Tony Blair just tell the truth?" Leaders of the Eurosceptic
'NO' Campaign warned that the change would put Britain at the
mercy of decisions by other member states. John Cryer, Labour
MP for Hornchurch, said: "This is the wrong decision for
Britain and more importantly, the wrong decision for refugees."
Mr
Blair's comments, in his monthly Downing Street press conference,
came as Home Secretary David Blunkett and ministers from the 24
other EU members approved a five-year framework aimed at coordinating
policies on asylum and immigration. The Luxembourg meeting agreed
that decisions would be taken my majority voting - meaning no
one will be able to veto any proposal.
Yet
Mr Blair insisted: "There is no question of Britain giving
up our veto on our border controls. With the Treaty of Amsterdam
seven years ago, we secured the absolute right to opt into any
of the asylum and immigration provisions that we wanted to. Unless
we opt in we are not affected by it. And what this actually gives
us is the best of both worlds. We are not obliged to have any
of the European rules here. But where we decide in a particular
area, for example to halt the trafficking in people, for example
to make sure that there are proper restrictions on some of the
European borders that end up affecting our country, it allows
us to opt in and take part in these measures."
But
Mr Howard condemned his statements as blatantly untrue.
He said the Premier had already signed up to the EU's Charter
of Fundamental Rights, which will give the European Court the
power to override British judges on asylum and repatriation. "Yet
again he is all talk," said Mr Howard. "The Charter
will give the final say to unelected judges. That means Britain
will lost control of its borders."
Shadow
Home Secretary David Davies said: "This is the action of
a gullible government."
Neil
O'Brien, director of the 'NO' campaign, quoted the Charter provision
that: "No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a
State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected
to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment. He said: "This would give the European Court
of Justice a powerful mandate to rule on asylum and repatriation
decisions."
Mr
Blair's supporters say the switch to qualified majority voting
- which gives bigger EU members more clout - greatly improves
the chances of making smaller countries tighten their immigration
policies. States on the EU borders where many immigrants first
appear, would no longer have a veto. They also claimed that Britain
will be able to stop the planned corps of EU border guards operating
here.
But
Mr Howard's aides insist that the country most likely to be forced
into line is Britain. And they doubt that the UK could keep the
guards out in the long run. Labour MP Ian Davidson said last night:
"There has been no debate and no discussion about this policy
- a policy which means we could be out-voted by other countries
in a contentious area. It seems daft to implement it before we
have had a chance to have a say in the referendum on the EU constitution."
The
plans agreed in Luxembourg will now go forward for final approval
by heads of state next week.
Only
one out of 15 failed asylum seekers deported
Only
one in five "failed" asylum
seekers is actually removed from this country.
So
are we suckers for asylum seekers?
A House
of Commons report points out that just one in five failed
asylum seekers is actually removed
from the UK, while the National Criminal Intelligence Service
has revealed that immigation
could be six times higher than official figures suggest.
As
Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch, writes: "The
result is that anyone who sets foot in this country and claims
asylum has a nearly 90% chance of staying on indefinitely, the
majority illegally. The reality is that our border controls have
been crumbling for a decade. The same applies to the Government's
efforts to prevent illegal working."
Hundreds
of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are vanishing after the
Government ruled they should receive notice they are about to
be arrested and kicked out of Britain. Under the directive. all
illegal entrants, immigrants facing deportation and those overstaying
their visas, who have families with children aged under 18, must
be told of their imminent detention. Read the full report here.
Also read how the EU Constitution
threatens control of asylum policy.
Britain's
reputation as soft touch for asylum seekers was confirmed by the
Home Office's top civil servant, John Gieve, on 30 June 2004,
to MPs. In a startling confession, he admitted that even when
asylum seekers' applications to stay in this country were turned
down, only a 'low level' were actually removed.
Still
the world's asylum capital
by
Matthew Hickley, Home Affairs Correspondent, Daily Mail - August
7, 2004
Britain
is the asylum capital of the world, attracting more new claimants
and allowing more to stay than any other country, a survey reveals.
The figures fly in the face of repeated promises of Government
crackdowns to rid the country of its 'soft touch' image.
Last
year Britain received 61,050 new asylum claims, slightly more
than America and well above France and Germany, with around 50,000
each. Just under 27,000 were granted refugee status here, more
than the US figure of 24,000, and far more than France and Germany,
with fewer than 18,000 between them.
The
survey of the G7 industrialised nations by the Policy Exchange
think-tank confirms the findings of the most recent global study
by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,
which showed Britain as the world's number one destination for
asylum seekers in 2002.
The
figures are an embarrassment for David Blunkett, who claims credit
for a recent fall in asylum numbers, but has faced serious questions
over the Government's strategy following the scandal over Eastern
European visas earlier this year which cost Immigration Minister
Beverly Hughes her job.
Only
last month the Home Office's top civil servant admitted to MPs
that Britain's asylum rules were 'extremely generous' compared
with other EU states, and were partly to blame for the UK's status
as a magnet for migrants. According to the latest survey, Britain
is also among the most generous in deciding whether to grant asylum,
approving 18% of claims - second only to Canada where 42% of claimants
succeed, although far fewer arrive.
Britain
now has around 276,000 asylum seekers living in this country,
according to the Policy Exchange study, representing just under
half of one percent of the total population. However, the statistics
take no account of large numbers of failed asylum seekers who
are disappearing to avoid deportation. Shadow
Home Secretary David Davies said: "Labour must ask themselves
why we are still the most attractive country in the world for
asylum seekers. The answer is, our borders are not properly manned,
our visa system is in chaos, and we hardly deport anyone who is
found here illegally."
A
Home Office spokesman said: "Applications are down more than
60% since October 2002 and fell 41% during 2003 compared with
a 10% fall across the EU as a whole."
A
Mail reporter spent a week in our
asylum courts. What he found there was stupefying inefficiency,
profligacy, incompetence and deceit on a massive scale. A truly
despairing picture of a system on the point of total breakdown.
And guess what, you're paying for it!
"The
massive backlog of asylum cases has cost the British taxpayer
£500million, it is revealed today," writes Matthew
Hickley in the Daily Mail, June 23, 2004. Read
his report.
Current
and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running
for election could share a platform at public forums in every
constituency. They would be presented with the results of
polls on this issue expressed by voters in their constituency.
The
candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their Party
manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they intended
to represent the will of the majority of local voters. Local
and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged and
the results published on this web site.
Here
is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in
the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective
MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote.
This example deals with the proposed
EU Constitutional Treaty.
Your
letters would end: "If
you do not answer this letter, I shall take it that you intend to
follow the Government line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming
General Election."
Blair's
defiance of the will of the majority of we, the people of the UK,
over the invasion of Iraq must be exposed by voters as a matter
or urgency, and not just in the two by-elections we have had this
July and the European elections in June 2004. But how can this be
done?
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would be
to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of Commons
and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be a penalty
if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies need to
write a letter along these lines to their local Labour MPs:
Here's
one to get Tony Blair to resign:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year
of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's 'weapons
of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair has admitted, that
the threat was non-existent. For that critical error of judgement
and for his gross incompetence in handling this very important
issue, I ask you to take immediate steps to ensure that Tony
Blair does the honourable thing and resign without delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and help
mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in Mr Blair
which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave the PM
with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue
to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances
I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of issues
could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and increasing
voters' interest and participation in politics. Download a printable
copy of the above letter here.
Or
why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates
in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions
of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).
Download
a printable example of the questionnaire.
It is
high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing
themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives
in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in
their own constituency, even if this means going against their
personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their
case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency,
they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view
of those who elect them.
It
will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters
don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important
subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy.
We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters
do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form
an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of
Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.
Most
important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their
latent interest and obligation to cast their vote,, knowing that
the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance
with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be
the result.
Contact
your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public
forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant
topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005.
You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of
your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject
being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected
by your representative in that assembly.
For
the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom,
must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign
Such
defiance of the democratic process and the will of the majority
of we people of the UK, must be exposed by voters as a matter
or urgency, and not just in the two by-elections we have had this
July and the European elections in June 2004. But how can this
be done?
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would
be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of
Commons and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be
a penalty if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies
need to write a letter along these lines to their local Labour
MPs:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year
of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's
'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair
has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that
critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence
in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take
immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable
thing and resign without delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and
help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in
Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave
the PM with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue
to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances
I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of
issues could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and
increasing voters' interest and participation in politics. Download
a printable copy of the above letter here.
There
is another way for the voice of the silent majority to be heard,
a voice that made sure broken promises would not only be revealed,
but punished in subsequent elections.
In
the year available before the General Election expected in 2005,
many topics are available as ammunition, each one asking questions.
A weapon for our purpose will be the results of Opinion Polls
in individual constituencies using ICM, NOP, Gallop, Mori
or YouGov.
Questions
suggested for this purpose are listed here.
CAST
YOUR VOTE ON A VARIETY OF OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.
Current
and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running
for election could share a platform at public forums in every
constituency. They would be presented with the results of
polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that
constituency.
The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their
Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they
intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.
Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged
and the results published on this web site.
Here
is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in
the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective
MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote.
This example deals with the proposed
EU Constitutional Treaty.
Your
letters would end: "If you do not answer
this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government
line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election.
Or
why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates
in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions
of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).
Download
a printable example of the questionnaire.
It
is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing
themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives
in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in
their own constituency, even if this means going against their
personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their
case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency,
they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view
of those who elect them.
It
will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters
don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important
subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy.
We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters
do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form
an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of
Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.
Most
important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their
latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that
the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance
with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be
the result.
Contact
your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public
forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant
topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005.
You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of
your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject
being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected
by your representative in that assembly.
