Foreign criminals

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.timesonlin...cs/article6965743.ece

Once again Brown thinks more of foreigners than his own people.

£5,000 that is available to offenders who go voluntarily when they have finished their sentence, whilst our own offenders are only given £46 discharge grant, plus a travel warrant to their home town, and they cannot start to receive benefits for a fortnight.

Wouldn't it be better for foreign criminals, when found guilty to be deported immediately, instead of the taxpayer paying the cost of a spell in jail for them, plus this return home package, at the time of their release?

[B00]

Isn't the alternative them digging their heels in and refusing to leave the UK? I'm sure the resulting legal fees which would arise would cost a helluva lot more than £5,000. If that amount makes them bog off for good i'm all for it.

I'm only disapointed the same rule doesn't apply to our "home grown" crims, I'd happily see them given the money to sod off elsewhere too.

[BertiWooster]

Quick AOG - Close your stable doors - there's a couple of foreigners and a donkey coming up your path

[123everton]

I say Betri, watto and well done!

[Quizmonster]

The headline and text of the article linked-to reads five HUNDRED pounds. Still, multiplying by ten makes it all look so much worse, doesn't it?

[B00]

rofl, and not only that one of 'em is a pregnant, she'll be wanting a council house for nowt too, the very nerve!

[anotheoldgit]

Quizmonster

In fact the headline:- ' Foreign prisoners given £500 to leave Britain after sentence'

Makes it look so much better, the real truth is:-

' The cash card pre-loaded with almost £500 is part of a package worth up to £5,000 that is available to offenders. '

[buildersmate]

I can't guess how many questions you've raised in 2009 on this whole area of 'the Home Secretary is a cretin who doesn't know how to manage immigration policy', AOG. I will have one last go in 2009 at trying to help others understand it. I've come to the conclusion that you aren't actually interested in understanding it, since it better suits your purposes to keep coming with these soundbytes that appear to make Government policymakers look stupid and the UKBA incompetent. Boo hit on the head in the first answer - it's the easy way out. However the longer story goes something like this:

Foreign criminals may come from the following backgrounds: -
1) Those here legally on visas or exceptions when the committed crimes
2) Those here originally legally who have because illegals (overstayers who arrived on an authorised visas but who haven't renewed and haven't left)
3) Illegals who no-one knew exist here until they were caught in their crime
4) Asylum seekers currently being processed
5) Failed asylum seekers who haven't been (or can't be) exported back

[buildersmate]

There are three legal problems (that I know of - there may be more) that prevent us sending some folks back:
a) Under Human Rights legislation there are some countries we can't send people back to. This is most likely to apply to categories 2, 4 and 5 above. It applies if the person shows they are likely to suffer if sent back.
b) If you can't identify the source of a person (country) you can't just send them back - the receiving country won't take them. This applies to people without documents - category 2 (when they've destroyed their papers) and 3 mainly.
c) Once a person can demonstrate they've been in this country illegally for a certain length of time and have established roots, they have a right to stay (not not necessarily a right to British Citizenship). This applies categories 2, 3 and 5 mainly. The period of time is about 12 years I believe.
So one way out of it to get around a) b) or c) without incurring huge legal costs (and these people do get free legal advice so its a double whammy on the taxpayer) is to bribe them to clear off.

[Quizmonster]

Yes, and forcible removal may cost double that, as the article also explains, so this could involve us in considerable savings, especially bearing in mind the "up to" phrase you also omit to stress, couldn't it?

[B00]

Hello??

Didn't I already say that?

[Quizmonster]

Ah! Buildersmate's responses were not there when I started to write mine, so my response above refers to you, not him, Another.

[rov1200]

The Human Rights Act is a crutch on which the government leans so that they can opt out of any real important decisions.

[sp1814]

So the answer is that this is a massive cost-cutting exercise.

If this is the case, then well done to Labour. Better spend (up to) £5,000, than tie up the courts and spend a lot more going through due process.

Don't see how anyone could argue with the logic on that really.

[anotheoldgit]

since it better suits your purposes to keep coming with these soundbytes that appear to make Government policymakers look stupid and the UKBA incompetent.

It doesn't only take my sound bytes (as you put it), it is a well known fact, they are stupid and incompetent.

We even give the French money to help them get rid of their illegals, just how stupid and incompetent is that?.

http://www.telegraph....free-flight-home.html

http://www.dailymail....-taxpayers-money.html

[anotheoldgit]

'Immigration latest'

http://www.telegraph....s/uknews/immigration/

[jackthehat]

Hold on............!
AOG has scuppered further argument by employing 'well-known facts'..........

I believe that trumps any other comment, no matter how factually based.

Time to throw your hands in, lads and lasses............:o(

[BertiWooster]

AOG

So what is your response to the valid points raised above ? - i cant see any

Do you want us to spend significantly more money putting these foreigners through due process or spend a fraction of the costs of due process, geting rid of them ?

[anotheoldgit]

/// Do you want us to spend significantly more money putting these foreigners through due process or spend a fraction of the costs of due process, geting rid of them ?///
BertiWooster

No, just change the 'due processes'.

/// They don’t want to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, they want to claim asylum in the country that has the most generous benefits system and that’s Britain.///

http://www.express.co...iew/97170/Jimmy-Young

[B00]

tut, that's disgusting steve! The ruddy trollop! Honestly, to think my hard earned taxes will be used to house this kind of scum.

;-)