We have been hearing many stories reaching the mainstream media since Priti Patel took the position as Home Secretary.
You would think that someone from an immigrant background would have some understanding about other less fortunate people wishing to enter the United Kingdom.
Priti Patels herself was born in London, but her parents emigrated to the UK from Uganda. Her paternal grandparents originally came from India who settled in Uganda.
I like you do not want to allow anyone to enter the United Kingdom. Yet, there are a good few reasons to do so such as work with a valid visa or an asylum seeker.
There is one worrying event that has recently come to light though and that is what Priti Patel considered for asylum seekers.
The Home Secretary Priti Patel asked officials to look at asylum seekers policies that other countries have success with. Nothing really wrong with that really except one of these policies was quite abhorrent.
The government looked at what is called offshoring asylum seekers which is fair enough and does work in other countries.
Even Laura Trott a Conservative MP stated that “it was absolutely right that the government was looking at offshore asylum centres to reduce the pressure on Kent, which was unable to take any more children into care“.
The only small problem was the offshore facility that was proposed was the Ascension Islands. It is an isolated volcanic island, south of the Equator in the South Atlantic Ocean.
So that is 4,000 miles away from the United Kingdom.
Now logistically moving asylum seekers 4,000 miles each time they arrive in the United Kingdom would be a nightmare. However, one way they could save money is to drop the asylum seeker out of an RAF Hercules by parachute saving some money.
Obviously, I am joking, but you do wonder which idiotic civil servant came up with this idea. You would think Priti Patel herself would not have even considered this proposal.
A United Nation representative was not very impressed and commented that “the proposal would breach the UK’s obligations to asylum seekers and would change what the UK is – its history and its values”.
Rosella Pagliuchi-Lor also stated that the Australian model had “brought about huge suffering for people, who are guilty of no more than seeking asylum, and it has also cost huge amounts of money”.
I tend to agree with her and even though I am no fan of the asylum system being so relaxed as it is this idea was farcical.
Now everyone has the idea that most asylum seekers are just at it. We tend to think they are living in large London homes paid for by us.
In reality, under new conditions Asylum, seekers cannot work while their claim is being processed. They are given a daily allowance of only £5 and accommodation is mostly in a hostel or shared flats.
Additionally, there are very long delays in dealing with asylum cases with four out of five applicants waiting approximately six months.
Asylum seekers must prove they cannot return home,e to their home country because of persecution due to race, nationality, political preference, gender or sexual orientation.
Those involved in these proposals need to check their moral compass as it is way off. Priti Patel’s involvement is understandable as she still tries to shake off her immigrant roots.
One can’t have one still being looked on as not really British I suppose.
This mindset still exists in some areas of the Conservative party in 2020. The cost of the project is not my main concern. It is making vulnerable people most likely escaping persecution travel another 4,000 miles further away from the place of safety they chose.
Fine a lot of people do not want immigrants which is their right to think that way. Please let me point out you could be that person escaping possible death.
As long as we have a fair asylum process and return those that have failed in their attempt with a 12 month period it should all work.
What do you think, please register and comment on this discussion.