2007-01-08 23:24:19 · 17 answers · asked by daudajalloh8121970 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
The Immigration minister Liam Byrne announced in the summer that there would not be a "blanket amnesty", but that they aimed to resolve all the outstanding old cases by 2011 - ie those that are currently here having been refused would either be removed, where possible, or have their situation regularised.
One of the problems has been that large numbers of people have been refused, even though the Home Office has accepted that it is too dangerous to send them back, or else the other countries refuse to accept them back. This has been the case with Somalia, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Zimbabwe, among others, but the situation is constantly changing.
There was an amnesty a couple of years ago for families, it has taken two years to almost complete, even though the number of cases was only around 30,000, so the target of dealing with all the old cases seems ambitious, since they can't even state how many cases there are, perhaps 250,000. In the family amnesty, it was for people that had been here since October 2000, there were strict checks for any criminal activity - one family I know was refused because of a relatively minor driving offence.
Amnesties have recently taken place in a number of European countries - in Spain they regularised 800,000. Eventually the situation of long-term refused people has to be sorted out one way or the other. Many of them have been here five, seven, even ten years, at the time they came they were given permission to work, so they are established here, they sign every month at immigration, they just need to be regularised.
With new asylum claimants, they are not allowed to work, their claims are processed very quickly, and they are given more rational decisions than before - if they can be removed, they are removed pretty promptly, if not they are likely to be given temporary stay. It's not quite the shambles it was before!
Hope this helps
2007-01-08 23:49:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
a million. maximum Asylum seekers arrive in this united states of america with the aid of airports. 2. this is not ecu regulation - this is UN regulation. each united states of america interior the international exceptionally lots, has signed as much as this contract. 3. there are various ecu international locations which at the instant are not protecting their end of the coolest deal up. the united kingdom does this is accountability and accepts its honest proportion of Asylum Seekers - in assessment to France or Italy 4. If an Asylum Seeker is refused the the main suitable option to also have a listening to, then that united states of america isn't following the guidelines - the guy in question IS entitled to look for yet another united states of america that does save on with the guidelines. the priority right this is that there are some ecu international locations which at the instant are not doing what they agreed to do. So the question would desire to be: Why are France and Italy (among others), not residing as much as their end of the deal? what's your undertaking with Asylum Seekers?
2016-10-30 10:13:57 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Mr Blair has made it quit clear, there will NOT be an amnesty for asylum seekers in the UK.
2007-01-09 00:00:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There hasn't been talk of one. If there was an amnesty, the Daily Mail will tell us all well in advance through screaming headlines and outrageously biased articles.
My advice would be to buy the Mail and then you'll know if an amnesty happens (and you will also save toilet paper in the process).
2007-01-08 23:45:40 · answer #4 · answered by CTU 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I sincerely hope not...how many borders have they crossed to get here...far too many, but there aren't the benefits in those places to entice people to stay there....so they come here instead and live off our welfare system which the hard working taxpayer has contributed to.
The British taxpayer is being bled dry, and getting sick to the back teeth of all those spongers, so the sooner they are sent back to their country of origin the better.
2007-01-08 23:43:14 · answer #5 · answered by sarch_uk 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think the loonatics have taken over the asylum, Hoi NO now go awayand seek else where
2007-01-08 23:32:35 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I really doubt it, as too many countries joined the EU now and Britain doesn't need any more workers, or shall I say people on benefit
2007-01-09 05:21:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why should there be?
So the Government should say fine you can all stay and the taxpayer picks up the bill?
Please stop playing the victim. You arent welcome, you have no right to be here so GO AWAY.
We dont want you here.
2007-01-09 01:40:19 · answer #8 · answered by rodandalisonthompson 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Kallico
So..as Mr B-liar has said there will be NO amnesty.
Means that we can expect one any day now.
2007-01-12 04:22:54 · answer #9 · answered by knowitall 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
whats the point when it just gets abused
2007-01-09 00:14:25 · answer #10 · answered by gary p 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋