New Report critical of UK asylum system

The independent Asylum Commission haspublished a report critical of the way asylum seekers are treated in the UK.

The system does seem to be far from satisfactory. It takes far too long to make decisions and implement them, keeping people in limbo. It does not appear to consistently implement those decisions when they are made. The decisions do not always seem to make sense to a ‘layman’. It is actually illegal to employ ‘illegals’ and the punishments for doing so appear to be becoming increasingly draconian, so they cannon provide for themselves.

It must be said that many of the cases of asylum seekers that one hears about look far more like economic migration than actual genuine asylum seeking.

This impression is bolstered by the undeniable fact that the UK has many more‘asylum seekers’ than any other state in the EU. The natural question that arises is: If all these people are genuine asylum seekers, then given that many have to travel through large areas of Europe to get here, why do they not claim asylum at the first opportunity, as they are supposed to?

One can’t help but wonder if the welfare state is part of the attraction - and part of the problem. It is the nature of the system that actually makes it a problem. The chance of enjoying the ‘benefits’ of they system is an undeniable magnet. The drain on the system caused by large numbers of people who have never contributed to it is a problem, a serious one in certain areas.

If there were no welfare state, or broadly it could not apply to those who had not significantly contributed to it, this would remove the ‘drain’ and much of the problem. It might also make the UK less likely to be a preferred destination. In addition those who came in reality as economic migrants could be honest about it either working and contributing to society, or go elsewhere, possibly back home.

Surely those willing to work hard to honestly obtain a better life and who want to become British and adopt our values might be considered to be more of an advantage than a disadvantage.

It seems it is only under a social welfare system like ours, designed as if it operates in isolation, that this would be a problem at all, before the advent of the welfare state it would not have been. One wonders if this might be a main driver behind New Labour’s desperate desire for a compulsory national identity card system, that and their apparently compulsive desire to regulate the population, in as many aspects of their lives as possible.

Before the advent of the welfare state incomers who did not contribute to, or preyed on society, would have found it uncomfortable, even impossible to stay and left, or fallen foul of the law and been forced to leave. The Honest and hardworking would have settled and become British. In any even there would have been no ‘drain’.

The UK asylum system unable to cope.

The Government’s obsession with it’s ill judged and useless targets chalks up another resounding success – not!

Despite the fact that, according to the figures (yes I know you can’t trust them – but for the sake of argument) so-called ’refugees’ are at a 14 year low, never-the-less our wonderful Government and it’s highly effective and ever expanding army of client employees have somehow contrived to foul up the asylum system so badly it is in turmoil.

According to a leaked memo the Telegraph got sight of the Home Office has been set a Government target of resolving 40% of all next year's asylum claims within 6 months.

This would in all likelihood result in all the older cases being put on the ‘back burner’. In recognition of this the home office are trawling staff for "quick win" ideas to tackle the problem. Amnesties anyone?

Already they are conducting an exercise to clear 450,000 ‘legacy’ cases by more-or-less just granting them amnesty.

It seems there is unrest in detention centres (Why? They are safe and being fed and clothed) and also claimants are just doing a runner before cases their cases are decided.

On top of that it seems fewer and fewer bogus/failed asylum seekers are actually being deported.

What is the actual point of an asylum ‘system’, if the Government grants amnesties at the drop of a hat when it becomes too much bother to process asylum seekers?

If the system functioned, no one should be allowed to stay once asylum was refused and all claims should be properly processed with no amnesties. Any offences committed in detention centres should have some influence on any asylum claim made by the perpetrator.

If the system, as it exists, is to be taken seriously then surely very few should be granted asylum in the UK if they have travelled through other countries that they could have claimed asylum in to get to the UK. The whole point of the idea is that they are supposed to be seeking safety not picking and choosing somewhere they particularly fancy living.

Why is this a problem with all this in the first place? The welfare State.

It makes the UK very attractive to asylum seekers/economic migrants. It also makes them a problem because too many of them could be a drain on the system.

What will this be used to help justify? ID cards that won’t actually be compulsory to start with for citizens - just impossible to do a lot of things without, and the ‘soft’ fascist state.

See where Government ‘incompetence’ leads to…