this is not a question aimed @ all asylum seekers or immigrants. however new government policy is aimimg to force FAILED asylum seekers to go home by stopping all benefits.
do we think this is a good idea or bad

I thought they could and did do that anyway, so what's new?

wouldn't it make more sense to deport them as soon as their application has failed?

Originally posted by Cyclone
wouldn't it make more sense to deport them as soon as their application has failed?

if it only it was that simple , im sure once they have been served there deporation papers a hundred bleeding hearted lawyers (legal aid) will come knocking there door

Originally posted by panda79
if it only it was that simple , im sure once they have been served there deporation papers a hundred bleeding hearted lawyers (legal aid) will come knocking there door

perfectly reasonable, they have the right to appeal.
Once all the appeals are through they should be immediately deported.

Originally posted by Cyclone
perfectly reasonable, they have the right to appeal.
Once all the appeals are through they should be immediately deported.

but from what i understand there is more than one appeal the lawyers can string it out for as long as they can which is totally unfair , it should be one appeal and if you fail that its a one way ticket to where you come from

I can understand why some would want benefits to be stopped to failed asylum seekers, and agree that they should be deported once they have had their application and appeals turned down. However if we stop supporting them during the appeal process then there is the danger that they will immediately go 'underground', disappear from view and start working illegally. There is always a risk of this with failed applicants going through the appeals process, but I think removing benefits would greatly increase the chances of it happening.

I think instead we need to focus on streamlining the appeal process so that it doesn't take as long, and then immediate deportation following the final appeal (and I mean taking the person into custody there and then - not sure if that happens already), before they get a chance to disappear.

I don't agree with appeals. What's the point in a judgement in the first place if you get another crack at getting the outcome you want? Is the first judgement not good enough?

Lets get this straight. Asylum seekers do not get benefits. They are supported at 70% of income support levels by the home office. Income support level is the lowest amount the government says anyone needs to live on yet Asylum seekers apparently can live on 70% of it. They are provided with housing - but again it is provided. No one has any choice over where it is and people who already have family here may not be housed even in the same city. The housing is often rented from private landlords who know that their tenants have no choice but to stay and so properties are often in poor condition and in area no one else wants to live.

There is an appeals process but it is finite. it does not go on forever. For those people who have reached the end of this process support stops. People can ask for basic support but this is very basic in the form of a roof over their head and basic food parcels provided. Some councils have started removing the children of failed asylum seekers and placing them in care! How much must that cost? If families were just given benefits or allowed to work it would be so much cheaper.

The problem arises when People come from countries like Iraq that the government says that there is no safe route back to. The government does not deport people but does not adequately support them either. There’s no wonder so many people go underground to work, find their own accommodation and lead some sort of life.

acording to the home office this morning - asylum seekers receive "benefits" costing 1 million £ per day. on average the case review takes 18 -24 months witout legal intervention.there are 3 judicial processes before they are told thay are failed. however at this point the lawyers start and the failed asylum seekers refuse to go home.
the government are to enforce non payment of any benefits s that they are forced to return home - discussions regarding the children being removed have been discussed by the media but the government are resisting enforcing that aprt.

Hmmm and we all know what we read on the web is true.

i work with refugees and Asylum seekers and i know what really happens.

Originally posted by Amyvictoria


If families were just given benefits or allowed to work it would be so much cheaper.


allowing them to work would be the best solution all round imo.
i'm not a big supporter of just giving benefits but anyone willing to help in the communtiy should be welcomed.

Originally posted by Cyclone
perfectly reasonable, they have the right to appeal.
Once all the appeals are through they should be immediately deported. on their appeal shouldnt they attend the hearing?
then if they loose the case they can be put out immediatly,no chance to run

They dont lose their benefits they still have a roof over their heads paid for by thr taxpayer and of course they still get food etc so this talk about stopping their benefits is all bull.
We dont need then and I feel sure the vast majority of the public dont want them either,shame the goverment dont show the same resolve as the people and kick the lot of them out now.
We ought to pull out of the convention on human rights which gives these scroungers the right to drag appeal after appeal through the courts and all at the expense of the tax payer through legal aid costs.
The goverment talk tough but everyone knows they dont live up to their promises,all spin and bull.
New Labour =soft on illegals immigrants.

Some failed asylum seekers are sent home, but the whole asylum system is flawed. The appeals system needs speeding up - and people should only be sent home when its safe for them. Some cases have gone on so long the children are more at home in the UK than in the country they were born in. Having to survive on 70% of benefits doesn't give anyone a life of luxury, but many are just grateful to live in peace here (when they're not the subject of racial harassment) Personally I'd rather see some of my taxes go to support people with a genuine need wherever they have come from than pay benefits to some of 'our own' who won't work! I'm not naive, of course some asylum seekers aren't genuine, are all British claimants genuine? I feel sure the vast majority of the public dont want them either Sorry, I'm not one of your majority.

Originally posted by panda79
but from what i understand there is more than one appeal the lawyers can string it out for as long as they can which is totally unfair , it should be one appeal and if you fail that its a one way ticket to where you come from

It isnt the lawyers you should be blaming they are merely making use of the laws that the government in its wisdom made. That after all is the lawyers job.

But yes there are too many failed asylum seekers still here and many more that never got around to applying for asylum in the first place that have disappeared into the woodwork only to appear and claim asylum when they have been picked up by the police for some reason or have wound up in hospital and have no documents or other means of identification having destroyed it. How do they get money? by begging, working illegaly for a pittance, prostitution, drug dealing, burglary robbery and many other unlawful activities. How do I know? I used to be one of those lawyers.