Migrants Given Asylum Despite Being Accused of Sexual Offences, Whistleblower Says
Migrants who have been accused of multiple sex offences and other crimes are being granted asylum anyway, a whistleblower has said, with targets incentivising caseworkers to approve claims. The Telegraph has the story.
A senior caseworker has told the Telegraph that Home Office staff can approve claims from asylum seekers charged with crimes, as long as the offence for which they are being prosecuted does not merit a prison sentence of 12 months or more.
She cited a case where she said she was disciplined after refusing to approve an Afghan man’s application because he had been arrested several times for indecently exposing himself in a children’s play area.
The caseworker, whom we are not naming to protect her identity, decided to speak out because she believed migrants were being allowed to remain in the UK when they should be deported.
She alleged caseworkers were under pressure to hit targets that incentivised them to approve more claims, and that applications from some countries, such as Eritrea and Sudan, were fast-tracked with less scrutiny than those from other nations.
She said even when asylum seekers’ applications were rejected by immigration tribunals, migrants could still make “further submissions”, often introducing new evidence such as psychiatric, sexual or religious claims, which delayed or prevented their deportation.
The whistleblower said: “It’s a carousel, just going round and round and round. We’re just browbeaten. That’s how we feel in asylum. We feel browbeaten because we read in the press that we’re rubbish. It’s not us. The ones at the coalface are doing the best we possibly can. We’re in a lose-lose [situation].”
Her comments come ahead of a major shake-up of the asylum system to be announced by Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary. She will toughen rules on criminality, curb the rights of asylum seekers to appeal against refusals on human rights grounds and overhaul the asylum appeals system.
Ms Mahmood, who has admitted the Home Office is “not yet fit for purpose”, has pledged to do whatever it takes to secure the UK’s borders and deport migrants with no right to stay in the UK. She plans to strip all migrants with convictions for sexual offences of the right to claim asylum.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I can see no reason not to reconsider all those granted asylum. New tighter and better considered standards might well reverse the status of a large proportion.
Our country is undergoing an invasion sponsored and organised by “our” government. So of course the invaders get to stay even if they’re criminals. In fact, our rulers want the criminals because crime hastens the destruction of our society.
Meanwhile back in 2006, even The Guardian had to concede newly-appointed Labour Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, had described the immigration directorate as “not fit for purpose…”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/may/23/immigrationpolicy.immigration1
“…Our system is not fit for purpose. It is inadequate in terms of its scope, it is inadequate in terms of its information technology, leadership, management systems and processes.”
“…Dr Reid revealed that that 85 serious foreign offenders, released from prison without being considered for deportation since 1999, were still on the run.”
12 Home Secretaries later, what goes round, goes round.
It should be quite simple:
1. Points-based system which favours those with skills of which there are a deficit.
2. No automatic right to state benefits of any type without a minimum of 3 years’ tax and NI-generating employment.
3. Automatic deportation if convicted of any crime (not including minor traffic offences and trivia like that).
4. Absolute and immediate refusal/deportation if not in possession of identity documents unless genuine refugees fleeing immediate and life-threatening conflict; and even then, 3 square meals a day and a warm bed within a repurposed military facility – no right to roam and security on patrol.
5. Absolute and immediate refusal/deportation if historically convicted of a crime in origin or transit countries (as long as the offence is also an offence here and not some kangaroo court).
The Home Office was described as not fit for purpose in 2006.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-15786213
We are in the process of a national agenda of self harm. It can only end badly if someone doesn’t get a grip.
Almost like a plan is being followed…….
It is easy to assume the reason Labour ministers have significantly lowered the standards for a successful asylum application for a cheap headline to demonstrate some level of success at something. But I think it runs deeper than that. The left within the Uniparty have both undermined border control by obstructing any effort to tighten up areas of handling the asylum route of immigration or any change which could bring it under control. This is about the destruction of our very identity as a nation, trying to turn the nation into an homogeneous group of identity-less, easy to manipulate drones who allow the state absolute control of what we think, eat and do on a daily basis. This has been the clear intention of every communist state to date be it Soviet Russia or China. But nature abhors a vacuum and if you destroy any concept of a national culture or identity then something else will fill it. Usually nothing goof. Communist activists found exactly that when they destabilised the Peacock Throne in what is the evil theocracy of Iran today. The communists who worked with religious militants to bring down the Shah of Iran were either thrown out the… Read more »
But Immigration Policy is simply a free for all where migrants are now dispersed to every corner of the country, in small towns and villages, and all so our squirming Political Class can align with the global government goal of making us all feel like global citizens rather than citizens of individual nations. Because when we have border control and self determination we would be so much harder to control.