Tuesday, 20 July 2010

Who goes where?

As the case of a deported frail and mentally ill woman shows, our stretched asylum system fails the most needy and vulnerable.

Late on Thursday evening, Gloria, who has lived in the UK for more than 14 years, was deported.
No one has a complete picture of Gloria's life. She was "clearly vulnerable" according to the UK Border Agency official who interviewed her when she applied for asylum, and might have learning difficulties too. She has mental health problems for which she has been receiving treatment.

Yes, a very sad story. My end conclusion is that it was a shame no one at the Borders Agency thought to have put Gloria's case file to the bottom of the pile and left it there. They will say that the case was plainly one where her continued presence was not in accordance with the laws of this land. The law is the law and one must start somewhere.

It would be interesting to know where this took place and then look at the record of the Agency responsible for that area. Was this a case where justice was demanded or was it an easy catch to bump up the statistics. I tend to agree with Blunkett that we risk being swamped by incomers.

We have reports that there is resentment at illegal immigration on the grounds that it is taking jobs away from those born here. Debating this is complicated because we seem to have no effective means of establishing how many UK-born persons are out of work in a particular area purely because there is no work available. Are they on the dole because it is more profitable for them to live on benefit? Are they the product of an education system so perverted that it's graduates did everything but gain an education that would fit them for gainful employment?

If we are to recover from the dire straits in which we now live, it will be necessary for everyone to contribute. All hands to the oars and no passengers. If someone can contribute, I see no reason why we should not recognise their presence here and get them to contribute on the same footing as the UK True Brit segment.

I could accept a system where employers acted as a sponsor for anyone - regardless of their residency status. If Majuba Saluba or Edward s/o William can do a job, give it to them. All the while they stay employed, they are exempt from Borders agency actions. They could transfer employment if they wished but any time spent unemployed would render them liable to consideration for deportation. The sponsorship documentation would include certification from the company that they had advertised the job for a number of weeks and had no better applicant than the person now nominated.

In return for this protected status, they would undertake to maintain a low background. No demands that we knock St Paul's cathedral down and build a mosque. Nothing about their females becoming mobile mail bags. Sharia law goes down the Sharia No Way. Those practices which are truly adjuncts of their religion would be permitted; what they might wish to do in interpretation of a religious edict would be subject to investigation and a ruling made.

This would allow them to contribute and would, if properly implemented and controlled, defeat those who claim that incomers are spoiling things for everybody.

The question as to what happens when those sponsored reach the end of work span could be solved along the lines that, after X years of gainful employment, the individual was regarded and treated exactly as a UK citizen.

The Agency should continue to investigate all immigrants. Those who were sponsored should be recorded. Those who have actively sought employment would have to demonstrate what efforts they had made to gain employment. This will separate the sheep from the goats. Those who get caught on the filters must be put outside the country without delay or prolonged debate. What may happen to them in their homeland is immaterial; we did not create the despots and the travellers would be well aware of the outcome if they came here and failed to integrate.

This eviction procedure will attract opposition from numerous countries. We will hear much talk of humanity and human rights. We here in UK have our rights and these do not include any form of having to give aid and succour to those who come here with the intention of soaking up aid like a sponge. It cannot really be humane to perpetuate any situation where an immigrant is forced to live a sub-human life as someone on the run. Life is hard for all of us but our salvation must demand that,in the first place, we help ourselves.

I do not regard any of this as racist. We are not arranging anything in the way of persecution or especial treatment. Those deemed UK citizens are going to be subjected to investigation and action where deemed as benefit scroungers or work shy.

In conjunction with all this, we would devote far more time to dealing with those who facilitate people smuggling. Really severe punishment must be introduced to take them out of circulation; fines are a waste of time given the rewards that they get for their dirty work. Fining transport companies is all very well but the prime control of what happens on a HGV is the driver. He needs to face lengthy imprisonment.

Knowing who comes and goes is a major task. Knowing who does what within a community is not easy. We hear much of anti-terrorist measures and these two 'knowings' must surely be part of such protocols.

No comments:

Post a Comment