Matthew Hickley, Daily Mail (London), January 23, 2009
As many as nine out of ten failed asylum seekers are being allowed to stay in Britain despite having no right to remain, a report from a Government watchdog reveals today.
The backlog of illegal immigrants awaiting deportation is growing fast as the UK Border Agency fails to keep pace with the number of rejected applicants. The number of unprocessed cases is also growing.
And Government rules stating that all successful asylum seekers must have their cases reviewed after five years—to see if their country is now safe enough to return to—have descended into farce, because the Border Agency has no way of tracking those living in Britain and no plans for a review.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling called the report, from the National Audit Office, a ‘shocking indictment of the shambles that is our immigration and asylum system’. Meanwhile, the Commons Public Accounts Committee, to which the NAO reports, claimed the Agency was ‘struggling to cope.’
Last year, the Home Office introduced the ‘New Asylum Model’ in a bid to streamline Britain’s chaotic asylum system, by assigning each case to a single civil servant from start to finish.
Today’s report acknowledges that the £800million-a-year system is now ‘better organised than before’, but highlights grave problems which in many cases are getting worse.
A surge in the number of asylum claims saw the backlog of undecided cases more than double in a year, to almost 9,000.
The NAO tracked more than 25,000 claims lodged from January 2007 to February 2008, of which almost 14,000 were refused.
But of 10,719 cases processed in the seven regions around the UK, only 918—less than 10 per cent—had actually been deported by the following August.
The rate was higher for 3,000 false claimants who were fast-tracked in detention. Including these claims, the overall removal rate was just one in four.
A severe shortage of detention spaces is making removals harder, the report warned, with much of the available capacity taken up by foreign criminals who have completed their sentences and are awaiting deportation.
The NAO also highlighted glaring inefficiencies, including:
o Seventy per cent of planned deportations—where security staff accompany deportees on flights home—are cancelled, often due to lack of proper coordination, leading to ‘additional work and costs’.
o The Agency often has to buy emergency travel documents from foreign governments to deport failed asylum seekers, but 13,000 of these have been wasted because individuals absconded, or because the papers expired.
o Since 2005, Britain has granted asylum for five years only—after which cases should be reviewed in the hope that some immigrants will be able to return home.
But astonishingly the Border Agency ‘has no process’ to track refugees living in Britain and ‘no plans in place to review these cases’.
There are 8,000 due for review next year.
Last night, the Agency’s chief executive Lin Homer confirmed there was ‘no requirement’ for asylum seekers to tell officials when they move house.
Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch, said: ‘This is a shameful performance for the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds. It is no surprise that asylum seekers, many of them bogus, are queuing up in Calais.’
Original article
(Posted on January 26, 2009)
Comments
It’s just as well that Hitler didn’t decide to invade Britain in 2009. Victory could have been his within two days with aid of a pedalo, a couple of kayaks, and a false moustache.
This is not a ‘bureaucratic’ problem that needs to just be ironed out. This is being done intentionally to wreak havoc on the White British race to demoralize them and make them give up their country.
If the British hadn’t relinquished their guns like the good little sheep they are, I doubt that these undocumented immigrants would feel so safe running around the countryside raping their women and stealing their property.
What a great first impression of the West a Third World foreigner gets… the laws are a joke, and you don’t have to obey them.
The only law that matters is the one that says they won’t let you starve - what more do you need?
Great Britain is rapidly being transformed into a brownish-black country; the only upside if that many White Britons are getting tired of it, and are starting to stand up and support the Parties (such as the British National Party) who will keep their country theirs.
If the British hadn’t relinquished their guns like the good little sheep they are, I doubt that these undocumented immigrants would feel so safe running around the countryside raping their women and stealing their property.
Yes, I have thought of that myself. Especially when I see the video tapes of African immigrants in the UK happy-slapping British Whites on buses, and anywhere in public, then laughingly capturing it on their cell phones. And a good reason this sick trend never took off in the US, is because people remember how Bernard Goetz reacted when black thugs decided to single him out for abuse.
It’s only a matter of time before there is another terrorist attack in London thanks to the incompetence of the UK Border Agency. A nation that can’t control its own border is not a country but a geographic entity of convenience.
In reply to Anoymous’s comments that,
“If the British hadn’t relinquished their guns like the good little sheep they are, I doubt that these undocumented immigrants would feel so safe running around the countryside raping their women and stealing their property.”
The British never had a any guns to relinquish. We have never been in a position of fighting indigenous Injuns whilst planting chickens, as you have over the other side of the pond.
The British are the biggest suckers on the planet and the Muslim 3ird world knows it well and are queuing up. The amazing thing is these saps congratulate themselves as humane, noble, sensitive & tolerant while they allow the destruction of their own children’s future.
The Labour party has no wish to deport them. It knows non-Whites are future voters for them, much like the Liberal party in Canada has done the same: turn immigration into a non-White voter importation scheme.
Graham of Wales said:
“Seriously though (and this situation is deadly serious), no one has the political will to remedy the situation”.
Join, donate to, and vote for the British National Party at http://www.bnp.org.uk. Great Britain’s last hope in remedying the situation.
BTW: Overseas (non-British) nationalists should also join or donate. If Britain can save itself through the BNP then it would have a snowball effect throughout Europe. Your joining and/or donating would help fund and provide moral support for the fight-back.
Posted by Graham of Wales at 8:59 AM on January 27
I am with you, Graham of Wales, although an American. This other White national bashing among Whites of French, British, Russians, etc., and otherwise has got to cease if we really wish to survive as a race.
Graham from Wales wrote:
You don’t know your own history. As my British grandmother would point out to you, England’s 1688 Bill of Rights gave citizens the unambiguous right to own private firearms, and unlike here in the U.S.A., such ownership rights were not tied into the issue of State Militias. Restrictions on gun ownership rights in England began to be curtailed only after WWI, and then even more so after WWII, with barely a bahhh from the British citizens.
Prior to WWI, English citizens had as equally-free rights to gun ownership as Americans did. Yes, after the wars your guns went ‘back in storage’, but that’s because of, i assume, the then new post-war laws enacted to systematically take away all your gun rights over time, which they have now successfully done.
If the battle-hardened British soldiers returning from WWI or WWII had taken to the streets en-masse when the government tried to pass the new restrictions on gun ownership, you wouldn’t be having this discussion today.
In England, over 50% of the home burglaries happen when the occupants are at home. In America, it’s only 10% thanks to gun ownership rights. Today, if a British ‘subject’ shoots an intruder during a robbery in their own home, they can go to jail for murder, and if the intruder survives, he can turn around and sue the homeowner for damages, possibly taking their home in the process.
You let this Orwellian nightmare police state happen to yourselves, while we Americans were out ‘shooting chickens and possums and eating our elvis burgers,’ as you put it. But you won’t be seeing Americans lining up quietly and obediently handing in their guns to the police just because we were told to do so like the British did recently.
At that point, Americans will stop shooting just chickens and possums and turn their gun sights on anyone who dares to infringe on our Constitutional Rights, which we got, by the way, over 100 years after you did in 1688.
And no, I don’t feel any ‘animosity’ toward the British, my ancestors. I feel sad that they, unlike many Americans, such as the readers of AmRen, do not believe the expression, “Hello, I’m here from the government, and I’m here to help you.”
Reply to Graham of Wales;
What you say about gunownership in the British isles is just not so. Gunownership was quite common until after WW1. This was especially true in Ulster. I suggest you do a little historical research. The truth is that the British people HAD guns and let their government disarm them. Again do some historical research. I was very surprised to learn just how widespread firearms were in Britain at one time.
Graham of Wales, why are you being so insulting to Americans with your litany of stereotypes? Because someone on this site called the British “sheep”? In large part the British masses are sheep, but so too are many Americans! Please don’t insult us. We at AmRen are your friends across the ocean; we follow articles like this because we care about your beautiful country.
Britain belongs first and foremost to the native Anglo-Saxon-Celtic British and that shouldn’t even be a matter for debate.
Anonymous wrote,
Yes, we were given the right to own firearms. However, whether we could afford to buy and own a firearm is another matter. Here in Britain we have, for many centuries, not been able to go out and shoot a buffalo or something else wooly when our tummies started rumbling.
Yehaw Graham
Like 5:07, I am surprised anyone claiming to be Welsh, or(British) would know so little about their own history. Because while Brits might not have ever been known for possum hunting, up until recent years, they were quite famous for their fox hunting, and it was entirely legal to do so, and to own guns for it. You might even want to have a look at this video, of British citizens in Scotland, demonstrating over the loss of their rights to own hunting guns. Most of them were not complaining, because they so dearly love shooting foxes, so much as they were complaining about their liberties being taken away from them, and also the ablity to defend themselves against home intrusions. Of course, with the way the Britain has become of late, most of you in the UK never had the opportunity to see this demonstration on the news there, because it has been banned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
Here in Britain we have never had to form the wagons into a circle - holiday caravans, yes; wagons, no. In fact, if the truth be known, the reason why America was able to be stolen from the American Indian was due to the fact that all the Indians had in the beginning was a quiver full of arrows.
Ah yes, and where were those musket armed pilgrims from, before they landed on Plymouth rock?
To Graham of Wales:
In the U.S.A. every year, over a million legal gun owners have twarted criminals by using their legally-owned weapons, many of whom had to only brandish them, not discharge them. Ten times as many criminals are shot by law abiding citizens than are shot by our own police. 200,000 women a year avoid rape and sexual assault by carrying a ‘saturday night special’ in their purse.
And less than 2% of those episodes where citizens have had to use their guns have resulted in a mistaken identity, that you seem to worry about. Compare that to the police—who shoot almost 6 times as many suspects mistakenly.
Yes, many of the British war veterans returned ‘shellshocked’, as you stated, but that’s a rather weak excuse to hand over your guns. There are millions of war veterans in this country who have experienced the same trauma, but they are the last people I’d want to try and take their guns away from. In fact, the U.S. government is trying to pass new gun regulations so that any veteran who has sought psychological help for their war trauma cannot ever own a weapon. That tells you how low these gun grabbers will go.
Here’s some advice from a possum and buffalo shootin’ American—start a peaceful mass demonstration with 10,000 or more citizens who are willing to surround Parliament and refuse to leave until they give you back your rights to own your own guns. What are they going to do? Arrest 10,000 people? Remember, you have a lot of policemen on the force that would be sympathetic to your cause.
If someone calls your people ‘sheep’, you don’t sit around and whine, complain, and come up with clever excuses. You do something to prove them wrong. If you’re willing to go to jail over a pub brawl, you should also be willing to go to jail for demanding your right to own a gun. The British have a long history of military bravery, sometimes against all odds, like the first Zulu war. Tap into that spirit. It’s still within your people, I know, because America arose from your blood and tenacity.
All it takes, Graham, is one man who is willing to stick his neck out and start organizing. With all your passion, you sound like you might very well be that man who could make a difference.
Graham of Wales:
Recall incidents like the two Jacobite rebellions. Those clansmen all had firearms. What about the legendary highway robberymen of British lore? They all had guns. How about noblemen fighting duels? They didn’t use harsh language. I read once in a British history book of an event early in the 20th century. A bunch of foreigners had robbed a bank and had guns. The British police did not. They called out to the crowd if they could borrow a gun from someone. Dozens of men produced firearms for the police. The idea that Britain has always been a gun-free place is as much of a myth as the claim it has always been multiracial and multicultural.
Why is it that eveyone seems to think that we in Britain used to hunt foxes with GUNS?
re:Grahamn of Wales-
We don’t have the premise that if you don’t own a gun, you’re dead. We do believe that law abiding citizens, if they so choose, have a right to own a gun and to use it to protect their homes, families, selves however. I personally don’t own a gun. However, in a way, I can see where gun ownership would not have been an issue in England in the past,unlike the USA. The USA has always been big and vast and many people lived(still do) in deserted areas far from towns or the police and needed guns in isolated areas, just in case. Thus gun ownership was necessary and needed. Britan, on the other hand, after the WW2 era was/is very compact and crime was extremely low so gun ownership was not something Brits thought about or needed. As such, when the government banned guns, most Brits didn’t care because they simply weren’t needed. Now with all the immigration and rising crimes rates, things have changed.
“In fact, if the truth be known, the reason why America was able to be stolen from the American Indian was due to the fact that all the Indians had in the beginning was a quiver full of arrows.”
What is now the US/Canada was 99% unsettled and uninhabited when europeans first started coming. Indians only made up about 1% of the land and these were different nomadic tribes who fought each other, had no concept of land ownership and there was no country. Later the indians were treated poorly in the US and Canada and that was wrong, I don’t argue that, but America as a whole wasn’t stolen, even though that is a common belief here and elsewhere. If europeans had not moved here, somebody else would have, as you had a huge amount of land that was empty.
Why is it that eveyone seems to think that we in Britain used to hunt foxes with GUNS?
That is indeed how the wealthy go about it, but since you originally stated that not everyone could afford a gun, fewer still could afford a large pack of hounds, and fancy riding suits either. Farmers looking to protect their livestock would use a gun.
Graham from Wales wrote:
If the truth be known, the reason why the native Britons were able to be conquered over the centuries was because the Romans, the Celts, the Saxons, and the Gauls had bigger armies and better weapons. The same is true of every territory in Europe at one point. Why isn’t anyone crying for the poor White European tribes that were slaughtered and had their land stolen?
You’ve absorbed your Marxist version of history wherein you are told to demand justice only for those who are not White. The White European races overcame their victimization, persevered, and despite the past atrocities committed against them, created a flourishing civilization. More recently, over 50 million Russians were slaughtered under communist rule. Look at them today. Are they sitting around whining about the past and demanding reparations? No. They dusted themselves off, and today they are still one of the most powerful, vibrant nations in the world.
As far as the history of North America goes, you need to check your history again. Recent archeological discoveries have revealed the fact that White Europeans had settled here over 15,000 years ago, around the time that the Amer-Indians allegedly crossed the Bering Strait from Asia and began occupying this land.
I don’t think there is another example in the history of the world, where a conquering people actually negotiated with the conquered and set aside millions of acres of land for them, in almost every state, and gave them essentially self-rule, along with billions of dollars in welfare subsidies. If we had followed the pattern of previous conquerors, we would have just wiped them out and never looked back.
And let’s not forget, that the U.S.A. would not exist today if our forefathers here hadn’t stood up to the greatest military power in the world at the time, against all odds, and unlike the ‘native americans’, defeated them. The British kept Canada as part of the peace agreement, and look where the Canadians are today. Like you, they no longer have the unrestricted right to bear arms.
Graham of Wales
Nobody here has animosity towards the British. When the poster referred to them as sheep, he/she was talking about a large portion of the white politically correct crowd there however the term sheep also applies to the white politically correct American crowd as well as Canadians, Australians and other europeans. People on here routinely refer to their fellow PC Americans as sheep too. Many Whites throughout the world have become politically correct sheep when it comes to multiculturalism and such so please don’t take personally on here that anyone is against your nationality. Thanks
Drew wrote,
Yes, you were late for that party as well. America tried to stay out of WWll for as long as possible. America got itself into a world war after someone flew over and decided to bomb its boats while they were still in the bath. So uninvolved in the war was America that it didn’t even see the point in guarding its own harbours. Coming into WWll so late made you overconfident on the world stage - you thought it was easy. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and now you’ve got to Afghanistan you realise that war ain’t the Nantucket sleighride that you thought it was going to be.
Quote: “This is not a ‘bureaucratic’ problem that needs to just be ironed out. This is being done intentionally to wreak havoc on the White British race to demoralize them and make them give up their country.
If the British hadn’t relinquished their guns like the good little sheep they are, I doubt that these undocumented immigrants would feel so safe running around the countryside raping their women and stealing their property.
I don’t see the mass gun ownership in the US having the slightest effect on the Mexican tidal wave engulfing parts of your nation. What good would guns do in the UK? We can hardly go out taking pot shots at those we suspect of being here illegally.
I don’t see the mass gun ownership in the US having the slightest effect on the Mexican tidal wave engulfing parts of your nation. What good would guns do in the UK? We can hardly go out taking pot shots at those we suspect of being here illegally.
Who said anything about shooting illegals? Now mind you, if an illegal, or any criminal for that matter, broke into your home or threatened the lives of your family, in America, a registered gun owner would be within their legal rights to shot them. In the UK they do not have that right.
Drew wrote,
Yes, you were late for that party as well. America tried to stay out of WWll for as long as possible. America got itself into a world war after someone flew over and decided to bomb its boats while they were still in the bath. So uninvolved in the war was America that it didn’t even see the point in guarding its own harbours. Coming into WWll so late made you overconfident on the world stage - you thought it was easy. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and now you’ve got to Afghanistan you realise that war ain’t the Nantucket sleighride that you thought it was going to be.
I am going to speak frankly Graham. I have spent a little time online chatting with people from the UK, and I have to say your point of view is much more like that of their asylum seekers, who I have seen online. I have seen them make the same arguments of Americans (who they loath) during wartime, and almost all of them are pro-left and anti-gun. Since you seem to know so little of the UK history, I am starting to suspect perhaps you might be a non-White living there. I might well be wrong, but your rhetoric reminds me a great deal of theirs.
So uninvolved in the war was America that it didn’t even see the point in guarding its own harbours.
Guard it’s harbors? You mind telling me how they could have guarded their harbors, from a sneak bombing attack, early in the morning? Up until that point, the war was going on in Europe, and America had sent fleets of ships, and weaponry in the war effort.
“Yes, you were late for that party as well. America tried to stay out of WWll for as long as possible.”
Why shouldn’t we have tried to stay out of WW2? We didn’t want to get involved in a war and have our men killed and spend billions of dollars all because of european stupidity (ie.Hitler) and failed politics(rest of europe’s appeasement). If the situation were reversed and Hitler had been in North America, you’d have done the same. Don’t be a hypocrite.
“Coming into WWll so late made you overconfident on the world stage - you thought it was easy. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and now you’ve got to Afghanistan you realise that war ain’t the Nantucket sleighride that you thought it was going to be.”
Nonsense, americans have never thought war was easy. We had the Civil War which injured or killed a 3rd of our country and we fought for 4 long hard, brutal years in WW2.
“2009 and you still can’t keep your noses out of other people’s affairs. One can only hope that this present recession, caused by the greed and incompetence of America’s banksters, will enable the USA to concentrate on its own afairs rather than everyone elses”
And you or any othe country does? Please, you don’t know your own history or present. The UK and every other nation has been involved in the past and is involved in many other nation’s affairs. We never colonized half the world like you did, now did we? I’d say that’s some big meddling. I’d love for us to concentrate on our own affairs starting with no more foreign aid.
“One can only hope that this present recession, caused by the greed and incompetence of America’s banksters, will enable the USA to concentrate on its own afairs rather than everyone elses. Why is it that America likes to operate like a world police force when most of its inhabitants don’t even own a passport?”
You have plenty of greed and incompetence among the elite in your country and so does the rest of the world. Can we say pot, kettle, black? I’d love for us to stop acting as the world police because the american taxpayer shouldn’t have to subsidize defence in foreign countries. We need to stop subsidizing defence in europe for starters as well as bring our military home from the rest of the world. The trillions we’d save should then be spent on our own people.
ps-spare me the tired blather about the passport. Traveling abroad is very popular in the US and most americans have done so in the past or present. Most americans have had a valid passport at one time but these figures only count active passports at the present time, not the millions of expired passports. Americans are more likely to let their passports expire because we have so much in north or latin american. Nice try. Don’t believe everything your anti-american news media tells you Graham.
“I don’t see the mass gun ownership in the US having the slightest effect on the Mexican tidal wave engulfing parts of your nation. What good would guns do in the UK? We can hardly go out taking pot shots at those we suspect of being here illegally.”
People here don’t and can’t take pot shots at illegal aliens, are you nuts? It could do you some good against home invaders, rapists and criminals. As much a problem as Mexicans are, I’d rather have them than the tidal wave of muslims in europe. At least Mexicans are christian and democratic and don’t believe in arranged marriages and honor killings.
“Furthermore, why is it that Americans don’t do irony?”
Graham, I’ve heard similar comments from Brits and I find them arrogant. Why on earth do you think Americans don’t have irony? EVERY country has irony and humor but it varies from country to country. So yes, we have irony, American irony. I don’t like or understand a lot of British humor but that doesn’t mean you don’t have humor just because it’s different from ours!!!!
To all my old Yankee mates:
We’re not wound up, we’re just disagreeing with some of the points you made as well as having the same reaction as you did when referred to as sheep(which we routinely refer to most whites here and everywhere,not just your country.) Americans get stereotyped far more often than non-white/western countries as it is perfectly acceptable to make ignorant stereotypes about americans, which is done frequently, but not acceptable when it comes to non-white/western countries. Cheers!
