Have we gone completely mad, or is it just the lunatics who run this country?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.express.co...illegal-migrants-home

This just about sums up how crazy this country has become, £2,000 given to failed Asylum Seekers to return home, but they can still return in two years time.

Surely if their application has been turned down, what are they still doing in this country?

Having said that should they not apply for asylum in the country where they come from, surely we could not just go to any country in the world and then apply for asylum, then why can they?

[Gromit]

// “They cost less than an enforced return and save the taxpayer money by reducing the amount spent on financial support and detention.” //

You disagree with that or you chose not to believe it?

[anotheoldgit]

No Gromit, just can't see why we have to be bothered with long stays in detention centres or financial support.

Just as a criminal is sent down immediately after being found guilty, why can't these failed asylum seekers also not immediately sent back from whence they came, upon their failed attempt to stay in this country?

[jackthehat]

If not the cannon (v. good idea, by the way) how does Mr Git suggest that we repatriate them ?

[reefer]

The wheels of justice turn very slowly in this country especially when some lawyer is going to make some money the slower they turn.

[jackthehat]

Will they have a safety net to land in, or will the tax-payer be expected to stump-up for the cost of parachutes ?

[Old_Geezer]

May be cheaper to buy them a row boat with oars, and give them a little push off from the shore? Tell 'em France is to the south.

[Ankou]

maybe we coulod just nudge them with bayonets towards the white cliffs of dover.

[jackthehat]

Or, perhaps, in the spirit of 'Jeux sans Frontieres', we could tell mainland Europe what time and in which direction will will be commencing fire......and their Border Agency Officers could (having first dressed as penguins) attempt to catch these failed illegal people in big butterfly nets ?

Do you think we could recoup some of the cost via selling the television rights ?

[R1Geezer]

Given the curcumstances in which we find ourselves Gromit is of course correct, however if you applied the only EU law that actually helps us then they'd be costing us very little becuase 99.999% of them would be somewhere else. I refer of course to the law that the EU ignores, that an asylum seeker must apply for asylum in the first safe country they encounter. So we should only talk to ones that arrive from outside the EU, the rest go back from whence they came immediately, no conversation to be had. Why can't we actually enforce the only EU law that is good for us?

[Ankou]

if they travel across the globe passing through various 'safe third' countries, unless they have made applications in those countries to stay, there is no proving they didnt come direct from the country from which they fear persecution.

[R1Geezer]

we get them from an eu country we send them back to that country, they do the same in turn until they get to a situation where they are going outside the EU. they apply there, simples. Eg the get into italy from north Africa, cross into France and finally to Dover, we send them back to France, they send them back to Italy where they apply for asylum. This would stop the whole issue pretty quick so in reality their would be very little of this deporting back going on.

[Zeuhl]

That makes sense geezer but in the extreme, if all asylum seekers arrived in europe via one country eg italy and ended up having to all apply there, it would only be a matter of time until italy applied to have all asylum seekers distributed across europe.

i suppose we might still end up with a net improvement.

[Ankou]

"we get them from an eu country"

yes of course that makes sense geographically, but as i said, unless they made legal application for a visa/assylum in that eu country then according to the eu law the first one they apply to IS the 3rd country.

[Gladeian]

Exactly R1 Geezer - but do you recall a case of a few years back when, I think it was Mr Justice Collins, allowed some dregs from abroad to stay in the UK and did not order their removal to the first country of arrival in the EU because the dregs perceived that we were more accommodating to them than other EU states (better benefits) because they were pikeys (or similar) - we need a less liberal judiciary hearing these cases.

[youngmafbog]

We could of course stop dishing out all sorts of benefits to anyone who lands in this country.

We should build hostels and give then food parcels from Lidel, no money nothing for the millions of kids back home. Enought to live and shelter. Maybe they would not be so keen to come here in the first place then.

We shoudl also get smarted with identifying bona fide asylumn seekerd as oppoes to the vast majority that are simply econimic migrants.