A series of clips documenting a workshop at the Westminster International Law and Theory Centre (http://www.wmin.ac.uk/law/page-661) attended by some of the most active academics and practitioneres in the field who shared their past and present experiences of the immigration and asylum system (both national and regipnal) and presented their ongoing work on various projects.
Duration : 0:10:0
This bunch of Lick-spittles in New Labour are very keen to brown-nose to the EU!
So why don’t they enforce European Law?
Why doesn’t the English-hating Polyphemic, Gordon Brown do something USEFUL in his miserable,vacillating life?
International law on asylum is b*ll*x.
It was setup to allow escapees from the evil USSR to get refuge in the west.
Now we have defeated the old USSR ‘asylum’ isn’t needed and should be discarded.
However now that we have a new equivalent to the USSR – that is the EU – asylum may be required in the future.
However as an englishman, many ex-colonies (USA, Australia, New Zealand etc) put me bottom of their list…
Is torture now the way forward for the so called law inforcers in britain?
and is torture now ligal in this world run by tinpots?
Has it not occurred to you that the same people who feign protest over torture are the same ones that make torture videos the most watched on the internet?
If Brazil says that they did not give Political Asylum to Manuel Zelaya; that they only gave human help to him…and they let him play politics and call to civil insurgency
This is a very tricky thing.
I could see how allowing Zelaya in the embassy could break article 41 of the 1961 Vienna Convention because it states that the mission (embassy) can’t be used for other purposes.
"The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State."
Brazilian government states that it had no idea that Zelaya was going to seek refuge in the Brazilian embassy. If Brazil gave asylum, that would be legal, because it’s in the Brazilian constitution and nothing in the 1961 Vienna Convention impedes Brazil of giving asylum to those who are persecuted politically by their government.
What happens is that in order for it to be an asylum, Zelaya would have to keep his big mouth shut and behave like an asylum seeker (there are rules to asylum seekers and givers). Not the case. Who’s gonna tell him to behave in his own county? How can a couple of Brazilians at the embassy control 300 angry invading Hondurans? How to stop a crazy president from giving a speach with 300 people there backing him up? Asylum seekers can’t give speaches! If Brazil accepts this as an asylum, THEN it will be going against the legislation that guides asylum giving. Zelaya is putting the Brazilian government in a tight spot. It is not Brazil’s intention and it will never be to break any International Convention. I have a feeling Brazilian government has no idea how to deal with this hot potatoe.
safe country, why does England have so many. I mean I know why they come here, but why are they not sent to Turkey or Egypt or Rumania, etc
The UK is no where near countries that persecute people. Its an Island
Are all Asylum seekers IRISH? Is the Irish government persecuting people.
Also, if someone was genuinely persecuted wouldn’t they be simply happy to get to a safe country.
Haven
Just being sarcastic
I just feel that the UK is unreasonably taking a heavy load of asylum seekers/refugees
Im not anti-immigration
I support legal immigrants
Why would it be wrong to send them to a closer safe country to their homeland?
Would it be a human rights issue?
Neran. read the question before answering. Everybody knows why they come
They come here because we are stupid enough to give them a house and loads of money every week !!
"Civil rights solicitor Fiona Murphy has condemned new Labour for failing to comply with its own policies on the detention of children seeking asylum."
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/86211
‘Ms Murphy, who works for specialist London-based law firm Bhatt Murphy, said children involved in asylum cases were being held in "prison-type" conditions.’
The case referred to was the result of a family being detained five years ago in 2004 in Oakington IRC. This centre has since been designated a male only centre and women, children and families are no longer detained there. It is an old facility and very prison like, being ex RAF barracks.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/immigrationremovalcentres/oakingtonremovalcentre
There are currently three centres in the UK suitable for families: Tinsley House, Dungavel and Yarl’s Wood. As you can see from the links, these are more open detention centres and have facilities that are suited to families.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/immigrationremovalcentres/dungavel
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/immigrationremovalcentres/tinsleyhouse
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/immigrationremovalcentres/yarlswood
Conditions have improved immensely in detention centres where families and children are held and since spaces are so few and far between, they are now only used for imminent removal cases. In total in the UK there are only about 3,000 detention places. Less than 320 of those are family spaces.
This is not the only case where the government has had to fork out large amounts of money for detaining children in these conditions, although to be fair, it is not just the detention that allows them to sue the government. In these cases there were alternatives available to detention or the parents had not exhausted the legal asylum process and so were not subject to removal, or there was mistreatment as in this case. They are not suing on the basis of detention alone.
Detention should only be used when status or identity has to be confirmed or there has been a breach of immigration rules or refusal of asylum and removal is imminent.
Here’s another case from last year about another family detained in 2006 who were awarded £150,000..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/asylum-detainees-win-record-payout-1608207.html
An extract from Chris Cleave’s website:
In 2001 an Angolan man named Manuel Bravo fled to England and claimed asylum on the grounds that he and his family would be persecuted and killed if they were returned to Angola. He lived in a state of uncertainty for four years pending a decision on his application. Then, without warning, in September 2005 Manuel Bravo and his 13-year-old son were seized in a dawn raid and interned at an Immigration Removal Centre in southern England. They were told that they would be forcibly deported to Angola the next morning. That night, Manuel Bravo took his own life by hanging himself in a stairwell. His son was awoken in his cell and told the news. What had happened was that Manuel Bravo, aware of a rule under which unaccompanied minors cannot be deported from the UK, had taken his own life in order to save the life of his son. Among his last words to his child were: “Be brave. Work hard. Do well at school.”"
Chris was commenting on the real life story behind a scene in his book The Other Hand.
The subject of detention is about far more than removing illegal immigrants. It’s not a black and white issue, nor is it a one-sided issue.
I am not a left-wing, liberal do gooder, far from it. I don’t in any way condone illegal immigration BUT I do believe that our compassion and humanity in the way we treat these people, especially children who are the innocents in this, marks us as as a nation.
Like once they arrive in the uk and are granted asylum or if they are allow to stay here,Are they allowed to stay here forever or do they go back when the situation in the country of their origin has been resolved?
How long have you got?!
Asylum-seekers are usually housed and accommodated by the Home Office while awaiting a decision on their claims. They are not allowed to work or get mainstream benefits. This was often years, but now is usually a few months.
If their claims are accepted, often after appeal to the courts, they are usually given five years residency, at the end of which their situation should be reassessed to see if it is safe for them to return. During the five years, they have the same rights to work and benefits as UK citizens. If it is decided that they should remain, they would eventually be able to apply for UK citizenship.
If their claims are refused, unless they have children, they are evicted from the Home Office accommodation and their support is stopped. They are still not allowed to work. The Home Office in theory sends them back, but in practice there are many countries to which returns are very difficult, there is a huge backlog, and also having evicted the people it is then hard to find them.
All this is a great simplification. The rules have changed countless times in response to tabloid pressures, so there are many other situations that arise.
In general, the life of asylum-seekers is pretty miserable, unlike what people read in the papers. People also often confuse asylum-seekers with other types of migrants, for example East European workers. The term refugee is generally reserved for asylum-seekers who have been given a positive decision.
Hope this helps.
This article will explain it.~
PDF] Financial Aid Handbook
618k – Adobe PDF – View as html
If you receive a loan, your payment schedule and disclosure document … "Asylum Granted" • "Indefinite Parole" and/or "Humanitarian-Parole" …
Australia detains all migrant seeking admission on refuge/asylum rort in secure detention facilities. This ensure no detainee is actually an incorrigible criminal attempting to subvert Australian hospitality of allow the foreigner to reside in their nation- despite Australian taxpayer having no obligation to them or their purported ‘persecutor’ nation to do so.
Why does the UK not adopt these same laws as fellow Commonwealth country?
Even your refuge advocate’s conservative estimate is that one in four ‘refugee’ is criminal.
From perspective of non-signatory to refuge agreement (Indonesia)- why does the UK believe it morally superior to host subversives, provocateurs, seditionists, traitors, minorities and such vile social undesirable- most especially at the cost of the blameless UK citizen-taxpayer?
I do not understand why one would seek to import social undesirable upon your own people.
Surely-it is not beneficial to UK native people and their taxes better spent on them.
Albert I invite you to Indonesia- wher you can witness these ‘persecuted’ who are actually white-collar criminal evading justice, extremist or subversive.
The latter two are dealt with most effectively by military marksmanship.
are you saying that you think the Brits should come first – that tax payers should get value for money and not have to foot the bill for unwanted arrivals – are you implying that it’s unreasonable to have foreign criminals on our streets- YOU ARE!!!! -well would you consider starting your own party because i would definitely vote for you matey until then after decades of voting Tory and then labour – I’m voting bnp
have a star for a valid point well made
"Immigration minister Phil Woolas has attacked lawyers and charities working on behalf of asylum seekers, accusing them of undermining the law and "playing the system". In an interview with the Guardian, Woolas described the legal professionals and NGO workers as "an industry", and said most asylum seekers were not fleeing persecution but were economic migrants."
Is Woolas right?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/18/immigration-policy-health-politics
To dam right he is. Spot on.