howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
15 December 2008
19:5411001#1
former tory leader mr ian duncan smith pronounced today that the goverment should pay benefits to failed asylum seekers.
his reasoning is that they may turn to crime otherwise.
has he considered that the fact they are still here is criminal enough.
hardly a week since the government announced plans to get everybody on benefits to make a contribution to society,
the opposition are actively encouraging scroungers from all four corners of the globe to come here.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 December 2008
20:0511004#2
That surprises me. I would just kick 'em out of the country, problem solved.
I find it strange that the usually sensible IDS would suggest such a thing,
Howard - IDS is a senior Opposition MP but is not a Opposition spokesman, so he is speaking only for himself not the Conservative Party.
As for the Government's proposals, sadly we have heard this before without any real action, sevreal time in fact over 11 years. It remains to be seen if anything is done other than just talk.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
15 December 2008
21:4711013#3
barry
is not ian duncan smith in charge of this "social inclusion" thing?
can you imagine how this sticks in the throat of hard working people on low incomes, to hear thisn sort of stuff coming
from people in ivory towers?
Sid Pollitt
15 December 2008
22:4611018#4
Maybe IDS is just confused. Are the Tories a political party or just a pressure group?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 December 2008
23:5911019#5
Howard - IDS is one of a number of Chairmen of policy advisory groups, his being Social Justice, they are puting forward ideas for consideration, that is all. He does not speak for the Party on policy.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
16 December 2008
07:3111021#6
Thank goodness for that.
I couldn't believe Howard's posting and still haven't heard it officially (I do belive it Howard, it's just so way off of the Planet).
I can't believe any one of any party (maybe someone from the Raving Looney Party) would suggest such a thing - even a personal view.
I used to have the greatest respect for Ian and his "social conscience", but this would be madness.
Sorry, if they're failed asylum seekers, send them back immediately, not spend millions on their accommodation - many OAP's would love to live in such warmth and not have to worry about where their next meal is coming from.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
16 December 2008
08:4711024#7
Roger, I found it difficult to believe that IDS would be as naive and stupid as Howard suggests. I have now found the document to which he refers and indeed it is not as daft as his 'red top' version says.
It is a paper produce by IDS' think tank, not by him in his policy advisory role, so it even furher from Party policy than I thought.
I quote a very small section:
"The British government is using forced destitution as a means of encouraging people to leave voluntarily. It is a failed policy. UK policy is still driven by the thesis, clearly falsified, that we can encourage people to leave by being nasty. The result is that we rely heavily on forcible return, which is both very costly and time-consuming, and engages only a small proportion of those whose claims are refused. This system gives refused asylum seekers good reason to abscond and little reason to engage with officialdom."
It goes on to point out that only 1 in 5 failed asylum seekers return home under this policy leaving the cost of enforced repatriation to be an average of £11,000 per person.
This is because they go into hiding and are forced to find work in prostitution, drugs and other criminal activity and hence add to a huge hidden cost to the taxpayer.
The report then looks at Sweden where 4 in 5 return home voluntarily in contrast to the UK. They found that by offfering limited work permits and limited social benefits they are encouraged to 'engage with officialdom' significantly reducing the numbers absconding and increasing returnees.
IDS also identified the need to speed up the process of repatriation.
They believe that the overall cost to the taxpayer would reduce.
Personally I am uncomfortable about hand-out and work permits to these people and would much prefer that they are simply sent back when they arrive without leaving the airport of Port. The only exceptions should be those arriving from 'unsafe' countries who can then substantiate the danger that they face in their country of origin. If we do have to let them in then the IDS report makes some sense and I say that through gritted teeth.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
16 December 2008
10:0611031#8
BarryW
The flaw with the above argument that the 'word' will spread back to countries were there is pressure to emigrate for both economical and political reasons and others will flee and head for Britain knowing that even if their application for asylum fails they will be at least granted a temporary 'work permit' and be allowed to work.They can earn a couple of years salary in 6 months before returning to their home country ditching their identity and returning to the UK under an assumed name and starting the whole process all over again.
No I am afraid its no good beating around the bush the message that the UK must send out is that it has a firm but fair immigration policy and those that do not qualify for entry or leave to remain will be detained and removed either back to the country whence they came,another country that will accept them or their own country of birth and origin.Any other message will confuse the issue and send out the wrong message.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
16 December 2008
10:3611033#9
As I said, I have doubts and what you say Marek makes sense to me. Interesting that what you suggest does not seem to be the experience in Sweden though.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
16 December 2008
11:0611034#10
BarryW
They have a slightly different problem than the UK in that they have land borders with Norway and Finland and most of their 'immigration problems' originate from the Baltic states of Estonia Latvia and Lithuania which is only a short ferry ride across the sea.So no real major upheaval for an immigrant to either be deported or make a voluntary departure.They also do not enjoy the same ethnic mix as the UK so non Swedish nationals find it harder to integrate into their society.They also have strict internal immigration control.In other words they can stop an individual on the street and ask for proof of their identity and immigration status. Something which the services do not do here unless you come to their attention RTA shoplifting or other criminal activity.
Removing someone from the UK is difficult because of our colonial past and present membership of the Commonwealth.So individuals have travelled vast distances to enter the UK either legally or illegally.They normally have no identity papers as these are either discarded or confiscated by the criminal gangs that facilitate and smuggle them into the UK.So before an individual can be removed their identity has to be established then travel documents applied for and obtained from the relevant High Commission or Embassy.These agencies do not always want to play ball so they can delay the procedure whilst they decide whether to have the individual back or not.In some cases they flatly refuse to issue the person with documents and if no other country will accept them we end up being stuck with them and they become 'Stateless' under the 51 Geneva Convention.
So the UK problems are deep seated are totally different from those of Sweden and other countries.Yes we can always learn from other countries but to draw complete similarities can often be wrong and misleading.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Sid Pollitt
16 December 2008
16:5111043#11
I see another Tory MP has spoken out today. This one says he doesnt agree with the government's plan to get single mothers to prepare for work. As he isnt the official spokesperson and the Tories said they backed the plans in the White Paper maybe he is only speaking in a personal capacity.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
16 December 2008
19:1211045#12
Removing someone, even a failed asylum seeker, isn't as easy as many suppose. Some countries will only accept a travel document issued by themselves and not an equivalent document the UK government can issue. A failed asylum seeker from China, Iran or India (for example) will have to have their details verified by that country and a travel document agreed. Many asylum seekers arrive with no documentation and present a false name, date of birth and sometimes even nationality - this makes obtaining a travel document a near impossibility sometimes as their details will always be rejected. Many are quite simply unwilling to provide their true bio-data details precisely for this reason.
Removing people without leaving the airport is all well and good, but if they claim asylum the UK is duty bound to process the application which can take many months. The only way around this is for the UK to sign off from the 1951 Refugee Convention, which is never going to happen.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 December 2008
19:3811047#13
to add to the last post, people do not always tell the whole truth about their original country.
for example, everyone was bosnia when it suited, then it became kosovo.
at one stage the twice the population of kosovo was living in western europe.
work that one out.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
17 December 2008
08:2111051#14
Thanks Phil and Howard.
I appreciate it may not be as simple as this, but if they arrive by ferry and our ferries only come from France, they should be returned to France; if they came by plane from Hamburg then they should go back to Germany (for example).
Roger
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
17 December 2008
08:3811056#15
Enforced removals and voluntary departures from the UK 1998 to 2007
1998 10,860
1999 11,345
2001 13,815
2001 16,940
2002 22,000
2003 29,255
2004 24,990
2005 28,410
2006 31,970
2007 32,220
Here are some figures I have been able to find on the number of people removed from the UK.
Roger
We never used to have asylum seekers at Dover as all passengers had already travelled through or from a countersignatory country of the '51 Geneva Convention.
Plus I.O's appeared to have more power and discretion in the old days so it was quite easy to cop a deaf un if some herbert started requesting asylum.It was usually answered politely advising them they could apply for asylum just as soon as they got back to France/Belg etc.Followed by a courteous 'cheerio'.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
17 December 2008
11:0211063#16
Roger's point:
"I appreciate it may not be as simple as this, but if they arrive by ferry and our ferries only come from France, they should be returned to France".
Yes this does happen in cases where:
a) Asylum is not claimed
b) The carrier (P&O, Seafrance etc) who brought them into the UK can be confirmed.
People are removed to France and Belgium every week via this method, though the admittedly the numbers are not high.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
18 December 2008
08:2911098#17
Thanks guys
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
19 December 2008
10:4011204#18
Sid
Isn't it funny a leading conservative makes a major contribution to a debate on a major change that could take place under the tories and our barry(cos he doesn't agree_) says IDS is only speaking as an individual and its not party policy
interesting that one
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
19 December 2008
10:5911208#19
I stated a simple fact Keith.
Sid Pollitt
19 December 2008
12:3311214#20
You're right Keith. The MP that I referred to on 16 December was actually David Cameron and that was overlooked or ignored, maybe he was speaking off message.