Mahmood to Deport Failed Asylum Seekers Before They Can Appeal Decision Under Laws Made in 2002
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will deport thousands of failed asylum seekers before they can use human rights laws to appeal or block their removals under laws made in 2002. The Mail has more.
Using laws drawn up by Tony Blair’s Labour government, the Home Secretary plans to remove migrants as soon as their asylum claims are rejected, so they can only appeal once back in their home countries.
The tougher approach is aimed at reducing the record backlog of more than 100,000 appeals made by rejected asylum seekers – many of whom are housed in hotels costing the taxpayer millions.
Failed asylum seekers will be deported to 25 “safe” countries identified by officials before they can appeal. These include India, Brazil, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Albania and Ukraine.
The measure has come under fire from Labour leadership challenger Angela Rayner, who said it was “un-British” and “pulled the rug” from hardworking families. Nearly 50 other MPs threatened to rebel over Mahmood’s immigration crackdown last month.
Alex Norris, the Border Security and Asylum Minister, told the Telegraph: “A firm and fair approach to immigration does not mean hard-working taxpayers provide for individuals with refused human rights claims, many of whom are vile criminals.
“That is why we are scaling up the use of these powers to deport more foreign national offenders to their home countries, where their appeals can be heard. We will not hesitate to remove incentives which draw people to the UK illegally.”
Under Blair’s Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Home Office can only deport failed asylum claims to safe countries where they do not face a “real risk of serious irreversible harm”.
The obvious question is why it is only now that the Government has decided to start using laws drawn up 24 years ago to secure the borders. Why did the Tories not use them either?
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.
She only has to get it past labour power structures, the ECHR, our courts, air-crew and empathic passengers. And of course the revolving door to the channel-crossing cartels.
So only 50 Labour MPs might rebel out of their majority but that is of no relevance since the legislation already exists and there is no vote in Parliament. The trick will be to get them to the other countries so they are away from our system so it is much harder – ie expensive for the immigrant charity scum – to undertake court cases. I am sure with enough money on offer they can find the planes and aircrew needed.
Perhaps use all those who may well be out of work due to the current fall in air traffic.
I still don’t expect to see it happen in short order.
Should be easy then.
That’s essentially the Rwanda plan reheated. Unless something changed in the meantime, the Civil Service will never do this. Civil Service Unions sued to government “because of the ECHR” last time to stop this. There’s no reason to assume that they won’t be doing this again and no reason to assume that the home secretary doesn’t know this.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Box of Smarties for everyone here if this happens
Can I have wine gums instead please?
Of course although I think my money is safe
Don’t tell me we have a Home Secretary actually doing her job. That must be a first.
Talking of doing her job, but talking and doing are different beasts, take Milliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security as an example.
When those other countries refuse to accept their citizens back what will the Home Secretary do? I do not believe she will block the new visas pipeline.
How can they refuse to take their own citizens back?
Illegals aren’t allowed to work, they are criminals so how can Rayner claim its “pulling the rug out from hardworking families”
The scale of her ignorance is monumental, unless of course she is referring to the hard working families in Pakistan, Afghanistan etc who presumably have funded the criminals trip to this Country
She can claim anything she likes. It won’t make any sense anyway.
Classic go to sound bite- she’s not actually thought about it all, because if she did, she’d realise it should save wasting tax payers money… not that that is very high up her list I’m sure…
Yeah, she just repeat the wrong line. They have a lot of scripts to remember!
Rayner and thought do not belong in the same sentence.
How about deporting all those here illegally,
She won’t do anything, as she won’t be allowed.
Cut legal aid and see how many of these vexatious lawyers still want to represent them. One appeal and that is your lot.
Its still a question of seeing is believing, and as they come into the country illegally, they are indeed criminals.
Yeah, wotever.
Oh look, Bacon Airways has got some fuel and has taken to the skies again.