Comments on: Getting to grips with asylum removals

By: real money slots

real money slots — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:15:14 +0000

The latest media articles,drawn from Home Office statistics, point to a reduction in the numbers of failed asylum seekers who are removed from the UK and a huge increase in the cost of supporting them.thanks for posting this informative article.

By: International removals

International removals — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:01:44 +0000

The main point of your argument is about political expediency, selling a concept to the public.Why do you think the public will buy your changes and I doubt that those who wish to restrict asylum will ever be satisfied.and thanks for posting this informative blog.

By: alllowercase

alllowercase — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:53:59 +0000

Duncan,
it’s the age old problem. Yes wouldn’t be marvellous if we all had open borders. All citizens of the world would be free to live where and how they wish, war would be permanently ended, no-one would ever go hungry, there’d be kidney machines on every street corner and lollipops for every child who fell down and scraped her knee.

Or perhaps we could acknowledge that (for very good evolutionary reasons) humans are naturally selfish and will not share in-group wealth with out-group people they don’t know.

You will never win the argument here. There will not be open borders until there is no need to for economic migration. There will economic migration for as long as the world is unequally wealthy, and the end of that is hundreds of years off.

Espousing this cause is a political dead-end and just gives the right a bloody big stick to beat us with.

alllowercase

By: Duncan Stott

Duncan Stott — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:46:54 +0000

I purport to stand up for failed asylum seekers. For fellow human beings who are judged unworthy of the chance to build a stable life that the rest of us take for granted. For fellow human beings who are judged unworthy on the arbitrary basis of birth location.

So I guess you’re right: I want to undermine the principle that some people’s awful circumstances are judged to be worthy of sanctuary, but other people’s awful circumstances are not. I do want to render that concept meaningless. Who are we to tell our fellow man that they aren’t entitled to the same things we take for granted?

The second point of your argument is about political expediency: selling a concept to the public. Why do you think the public will buy your changes? I doubt that those who wish to restrict asylum will ever be satisfied.

Look at immigration: Labour have clearly brought in much tougher border controls over the last few years. Are MigrationWatch et al satisfied? No. They’ll call for more and more restrictions until the borders are closed.

When the tabloids got themselves into a frenzy over the asylum figures in the early 2000′s, were they worried about the sheer number of cases that were granted… nothing to do with the nature of deportations.

The idea that the public will be supportive of asylum if deportations are more efficient lacks any evidence.

By: tim finch Head of Migration ippr

tim finch Head of Migration ippr — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:50:50 +0000

Jill – who is of course an old colleague of mine – is dead right that criticising the government in the strongest terms for the inhumanity and injustices in the asylum process should not lead us to conclude that all removals are wrong.
Indeed if a progressive government is to gain support from the wider public for a more generous and humane asylum system it needs to be able to show that those people who – after a fair hearing – are found not to
need protection are being removed from the country in greater numbers (and with greater efficiency) than at present. As long, of course – and Jill makes the point – that it is safe and sustainable to do so.
The principle of being able to seek protection in another country when you are in danger in your own is precious – and should be defended at all costs. But people like Duncan, who purport to stand up for asylum seekers, are undermining that precious principle. If no one can ever be deported then we end up with – de facto – ‘claim asylum,get asylum’ which renders the concept meaningless. Asylum must be for those who need it, not for those who don’t. If it just becomes a way to get into the UK with no chance of being send back then we will soon find that public and political pressure to end refugee protection grows.

By: Duncan Stott

Duncan Stott — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:11:54 +0000

It is completely unfair to say that open borders advocates (like myself) suppress honest debate.

We want as much light shone onto the inhumane treatment of failed asylum seekers as possible. That is the real problem: a lack of media attention on how the government is treating these people.

You disagree with our solution to the (invented) problems you describe. Please, put forward some solutions of your own (you didn’t do in this article). We can then debate your ideas on their merits. Hey, you may even win people over.

But from my perspective, the only way I can think of to solve all the problems with deporting people is to stop deporting people.

By: Duncan Stott

Duncan Stott — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:45:58 +0000

RT @leftfootfwd: Getting to grips with asylum removals: http://cli.gs/ZqJRV – interesting statistics