Why Is He Still Here?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458617/Mark-Harper-tells-time-failed-asylum-seeker-home-live-TV.html

Five times he has refused to leave Britain, the immigration minister himself told him to go on live television, this is the minister who supports a van touring the country, with the harmless message, "go home or face arrest".

Yet this is just one of many that refuses to go, supported apparently by the Lib Dems who dismissed the vans as 'silly', Labour who accused the Tories of using the ‘language of the National Front’, and The Advertising Standards Authority who said the 'go home' slogan was 'distasteful'.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/14/article-0-189BB10300000578-750_634x400.jpg

They could start by saving the fuel that this van uses, so withdrawing any warning and when these illegals are caught, they should be sent back from whence they came almost immediately, yes let's defy Europe and see what they can do about it.

This type of thing would never happen in any other country, when is Britain to get it's back bone back, that back bone that made Britain Great?

[pixie373]

I don't know. He obviously should have been sent home six years ago.

[FredPuli43]

Good question, AOG, and "Why hasn't he been sent back on his first being refused?" is the natural supplementary question. Either we have laws or we don't. If we don't, then we should have some. If we do, then they should be enforced. We manage well enough with other laws, from driving disqualified to Revenue ones, and most others.

[mushroom25]

one person's illegal is another person's asylum seeker.

[sp1814]

AOG

In answer to your specific question as to why he has not been sent home. I don't know but personally, if you are seeking asylum and you have your case heard and your application is turned down, you should be sent back to your country of origin.

It should be a one shot deal.

The vans were a daft idea because what would they ever achieve? Let's take someone who has travelled here from Somalia or Afghanistan. They work have either paid a people smuggler or somehow made their way here in the back of (or even underneath) vans and lorries.

Now...say if after all that, they're walking down a local high street and they see a van that says, "Go home", are they really going to think..."Hmmm, yes - perhaps I should".

No - the posters were more for the British electorate, than illegal immigrants.

Also, AOG - it would help keep the debate on an even keel if you didn't conflate 'illegal immigrant' with 'asylum seeker'.

There are some who are both, but that doesn't necessarily make the terms synonyms.

[pixie373]

I think that's because aog is talking about illegal immigrants in particular. I can't see he has used the phrase "asylum seeker" at all.

[sp1814]

pixie373

The story is about a failed asylum seeker (as per the link in the question).

[pixie373]

Which makes him an illegal immigrant, surely?

[sandyRoe]

Is he stil here because he hasn't exhausted all the steps in the appeal procedure?

[LazyGun]

There is a distinction between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant; Once someone is recognised by the authorities as an asylum seeker they are not illegal, for a start. Nor could they be considered an immigrant, since their status is still to be determined.

I do not quite understand why this man has had 4-5 appeals though. It was my understanding that the asylum process was much more streamlined than that, with only 1 appeal allowed. Curious to know where the other appeals have come from.

http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/pages/the_asylum_process_made_simple.html#What

[pixie373]

He's tried five times, sandy and been refused each time. I don't know how many attempts you can have. I would have expected one attempt and one appeal. Preferably within six weeks.

[pixie373]

There is a distinction, lg, but aog has used it correctly. An asylum seeker is fair enough. Being told, no, go home, makes him illegal. An immigrant is anyone who moves in from another country. So he is definitely an immigrant.

[LazyGun]

@ pixie There is a distinction, lg, but aog has used it correctly. An asylum seeker is fair enough. Being told, no, go home, makes him illegal. An immigrant is anyone who moves in from another country. So he is definitely an immigrant

Sorry, was getting a bit confused with the story - I had originally read the story as saying he was still part of the asylum seeker appeals process, whereas a second read suggests he has been through the appeals process ( although I still cannot quite fathom why 5 appeals) but is still residing here. That I do not understand.

[pixie373]

No, i don't either. Surely there must be a limit on appeals? What has changed between first, second, third...etc, to earn another appeal?

[trt]

Why the hell was he not sent back after his first appeal was refused?

Our Government should learn a lesson from the Australian Immigration Department and put him on the first plane back to his family he deserted

[EDDIE51]

We need a link to another source of information, The Daily Mail is notorious for only publishing those parts of storys that suit its purpose. There MUST have been grounds for all the appeals, but the Mail chooses not to disclose them.

[mushroom25]

you could watch the actual show, and decide for yourself:-

[sp1814]

Oh damn - yes...it's the Daily Mail.

Is there another news source we can go to, to find out why he had so many appeals?

[TTG]

Imagine the chaos next year. Just get a passport in the countries about to get FULL access to the UK "jobs market" and...well you can guess the rest. Trying to sift through that lot to determine who is illegal and who isn't will make this case seem like a drop in the ocean.

[sp1814]

TTG

Which countries?

I know some are joining the EU, but can't recall which.

[FredPuli43]

TTG, how would anyone from a full EU state be an illegal immigrant here or in any other EU state ? Or are you saying that these states shouldn't be in the EU, and making a joke about it ?