[Closed] Deported and disappeared, maybe dead.

Without warning? Unlikely. Deportation actions usually drag on for months or even years and in this case "a number of appeals against deportation had failed".

Deportation actions usually drag on for months or even years

Do they ? I know someone who was instantly deported to Hong Kong without any right of appeal because they lacked a valid visa. I don't know what percentage of deportations that sort of action represents but I'm not convinced that it usually takes months or even years.

EDIT : OK I've checked and discovered that there is a distinction between deportation and removal, the above example is an example of removal. I should have checked first ! 🙂

Without being able to say goodbye, or collect his things.

And nevertheless that's not the point - he may well be dead because of the actions of our government - you're not horrified by that?

Surely he may well be dead because of the action of his own government not ours ?

Being sent straight back because you arrived at Immigration without a visa is not the same as being deported from the country you entered and whose government has decided it has reason to send you home.

If you push someone into the road and they're run over by a truck, are you blameless?

See my edit globalti. But I wasn't talking about "being sent straight back because you arrived at Immigration without a visa" btw, the individual I'm talking about had been in the UK for many months and had a job.

The actions of the current and last government with regard to deportation and denial of visas in cases where people are vulnerable or families need to stay together are generally pretty appalling. I am constantly staggered by what I see from them- Theresa May in particular is a very cruel woman.

Well at least they're not being xenophobic - as well as targeting vulnerable British citizens they show the same callous disregard for vulnerable foreigners.

The actions of the current and last government with regard to deportation and denial of visas in cases where people are vulnerable or families need to stay together are generally pretty appalling. I am constantly staggered by what I see from them- Theresa May in particular is a very cruel woman.

....thus in two sentences you completely ignore the thousands of refugees and asylum seekers from dangerous countries who are recovering from their ordeals in the safety of Britain as a result of the generosity and humanity of the British people and their government?

The problem is that Britain is considered the safest and most civilised and welcoming country in the world and consequently millions of people would just love to come and settle here. In trying to sort out the genuinely deserving from the rest, there are bound to be a few controversial decisions and these are bound to be the focus of ill-informed discussions like this where the vast majority of correct decisions are ignored.

There is a difference between the UK's history of offering refuge and asylum to vulnerable individuals and the current and last government's attempts to apply more restrictions. But you probably knew that.

And the UK isn't unique in offering asylum of course :

[img] [/img]

(2013 figures)

That's applications; not the same as asylums granted.

Are you saying that figures for asylum applications granted would paint a very different picture from the above graph based on UNHCR figures? If so can you provide proof? If not why make the point?

"nearly all” those arriving from Eritrea and Syria should be treated as refugees rather than economic migrants and pointed out that Sweden and Germany were taking in more foreigners per capita than Britain

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4470065.ece

As Ernie points out, you're referring to the compassion of the country 6 years ago, not the current government's attitude of turning a blind eye to those in need- both British citizens and those from abroad.

Even in 2008 Germany was taking 7.08 refugees per capita, while Britain was taking only 4. That figure has only gone down since.

Are you saying that figures for asylum applications granted would paint a very different picture from the above graph based on UNHCR figures? If so can you provide proof? If not why make the point?

Absolutely! Why on Earth would you take that graph as proof that, for example, Germany was accepting more asylum seekers than Britain? We have no idea of the success rate of asylum applications in any of those countries. No, of course I can't provide proof but I am always very wary indeed of official statistics; anybody who isn't wary is naive.

The statistics I gave are actual refugees, not applicants. Yes, we do take less than Germany, as you would assume given Germany gets more applications and the UK rejects a higher percentage (Germany rejects 31%, the UK 78%!).

Lol at globalati So you object but you have no facts to back this up and even if you did you would not believe them because anything else would be naive

This should be an interesting "debate"

Surely he may well be dead because of the action of his own government not ours ?

No, of course I can't provide proof but I am always very wary indeed of official statistics

And I am very wary of anonymous individuals on bike forums who question UNHCR figures expecting others to agree without any need of proof. Anybody who isn't wary is naive.

http://tundratabloids.com/2015/05/eu-takes-note-of-swedens-record-intake-of-migrants.html

NUS Scotland president-elect, Vonnie Sandlan, said Mr Ali’s detention had happened “very suddenly” after he went to the local Home Office to sign some papers and had been detained on May 29 in Glasgow’s Dunvagel Detention Centre after a number of appeals against his deportation order failed.

So, truthfully, it happened "very suddenly" after a long and drawn out process where he had every chance to show that he was in genuine need and failed to do so?

he may well be dead because of the actions of our government - you're not horrified by that?

Of course deporting someone to face torture or death would breach articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

But then we know how the current government feels about that...

This is why we don't need the human rights act. We can trust this government to act fairly and responsibly. I mean, one of their stated aims is to make it easier to deport people to countries where they might get tortured or killed (that's the ones we deport officially rather than by illegal rendition), but who could possibly have a problem with that?

Edit: snap, kinda

Even in 2008 Germany was taking 7.08 refugees per capita, while Britain was taking only 4. That figure has only gone down since.

Well, we as citizens, have only ourselves to blame for this. We've encouraged Xenophobic and racist press barons by buying their papers and feeding on their prejudices. We've created and fed an anti foreigner party and propelled it to 12.6% of the National Vote. We've allowed the Tory Party to become beholden to anti-immigrant rhetoric, crippled by internal struggles.

So we can't then be too surprised when the UK government doesn't seem too keen to take refugees, they're just following the sentiment of their voters.

I'd like more info on this and a follow up. If three members of his immediately family have potentially been killed then this wouldn't have happened. It just wouldn't. Sorry I'm on the fence on this until more info is available. Was the stories of his family verified or his word/the word of his relatives in the UK? Its not inconceivable that people will lie to stay. Its not unknown that people who are economic migrants claim to be fleeing persecution. This can detract to those who are genuinely fleeing Syria etc. He'd have been interviewed etc etc.

Sorry - its not always black and white. Its not going to be popular what I've said ^ but I take what papers report as biased or partial reporting. Please feel free to howl and say papers never get it wrong and it'll be the full story though. I wont respond/pointless pages of argument would ensue.

The [s]problem[/s] [b]thing that makes me very proud[/b] is that Britain is considered the safest and most civilised and welcoming country in the world and consequently millions of people would just love to come and settle here. In trying to sort out the genuinely deserving from the rest, there are bound to be a few controversial decisions and these are bound to be the focus of ill-informed discussions like this where the vast majority of correct decisions are ignored.

Slight edit Globalti.

Pretty scary isn't it? Why is it so hard to be nice?

Why is it so hard to be nice?

Being nice takes a bit of effort. Anyone can be an arsehole. People are lazy and selfish ergo most aren't very nice.

Depressingly predictable responses are depressingly predictable.

cranberry - Member

So, truthfully, it happened "very suddenly" after a long and drawn out process where he had every chance to show that he was in genuine need and failed to do so?

Or, truthfully, that the system failed or refused to recognise his genuine need, which has now been proved in the worst possible way. Talk about victim blaming.

Here's a fun fact for you. 50% of all appeals against asylum decisions are succesful. That's a terrible failure rate. And no wonder, because the Home Office sets a 70% rejection target and offers rewards to staff for rejecting applications, like they're selling PPI. No wonder they see their job as kicking people out, rather than giving fair hearings.

Germany isn't taking these people because it's being nice.

The Germans, as ever, are being pragmatic.

They have an aging population problem.

In trying to sort out the genuinely deserving from the rest, there are bound to be a few controversial decisions

Like, for instance, trying to deport a guy with learning difficulties - even though he has never left the UK and doesn't own a passport?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/a-british-man-whos-never-left-the-uk-is-being-threatened-wit

Oops!

They have an aging population problem.

Not unique to Germany, pretty much all of WE and Japan are in the same situation.

has now been proved in the worst possible way.

What [u]proof[/u], exactly ? He hasn't called someone that he said he would - that is proof only of the fact that he hasn't called someone that he said he would.

What proof, exactly ? He hasn't called someone that he said he would - that is proof only of the fact that he hasn't called someone that he said he would.

That's the horrible thing about disappearances - people just disappear. That's what security services do, even our own.

Or are you saying that he's deliberately not making contact?

Or are you saying that he's deliberately not making contact?

No he's saying, quite rightly, that not making contact is not conclusive proof he's been killed.

So, can we just get this right - he applied for asylum in 2011, and his claim failed, over the next few years he followed the appeal process, and several appeals also failed, at which point he was detained at a immigration facility and subsequently returned to ****stan.

So, whats the alternative? Should we just let anyone who applies for asylum stay, regardless of the validity of their claim?

Personally, I'd strongly suggest that a very good case could be made for detaining any asylum applicant in a secure facility from the point of arrival/claim, where their case could be investigated and assessed, and they could receive the care, safety, medical and often psychological help that they might need to get over their ordeal and to help them adapt to their new home before moving forward into the community if their claim was successful, or deported if not - is that so unreasonable?

Which is why I said "maybe dead" - he promised he'd get in touch to say he's safe, he hasn't managed to using several forms of communication. Therefore the reasonable inference to make is that he's not safe. Hopefully he's just being questioned and will be released unharmed, but who knows.

Yes we should incarcerate them for their own good and so we can help them adjust it what any humanitarian would do

So, whats the alternative? Should we just let anyone who applies for asylum stay, regardless of the validity of their claim?

I think the argument is that we should get the assessment correct and not send people to their deaths/return them to danger.

Saying you are in danger, and actually being in danger, aren't necessarily the same thing though are they? Otherwise the entire system would be open to abuse - it seems that this chap has had four years to make his case, and the process has been followed, his reasoning for asylum and the reason for rejection of his claims will all have been recorded in writing, allowing for legal advice and intervention, with several stages of appeal, with the final decision being that his case for asylum was not made.

None of your reply attempts to suggest we got the decision right.

OK, fair play, proven was the wrong word. Though tbf, if true he'd be "disappeared" like his dad rather than "killed" so proven might never be an option.

Picking over details of one case implies it might be a one-off, here's another 77.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/17/asylum-seekers-migrants-uk-report

Though, some tried to undermine it by pointing out that it included people who took their own lives, and who died while being deported, as if that was somehow better.

So, anyone got any defence for the fact that the government sets a target for the percentage of asylum seekers that should be rejected, and incentivises staff for declining applications?

None of your reply attempts to suggest we got the decision right.

No matter what system you put in place you'll never get 100% of decisions right, occasionally someone might die as a result.

None of that reply attempts to say we got this decision right either.

As far as i can see no one has argued this or any other system is perfect.

No civic or criminal system can be perfect. Two years ago I did jury duty, as a consequence of which I understand that while the jury system is not perfect, it probably gets it right.... most of the time for most people.

footflaps - Member
Well, we as citizens, have only ourselves to blame for this. We've encouraged Xenophobic and racist press barons by buying their papers and feeding on their prejudices.

So, if it turns out he isn't dead, will there be a mass procession of Glasgow students and affiliated lefties with placards praising the government for another well thought out and humane asylum decision, proving that the system works?

Scribble , prod , wibble scribble
Not amongst your best efforts

None of that reply attempts to say we got this decision wrong

Bureaucratic system in (possibly) wrong decision shocker. In other news 500,000 people die every year from malaria for lack of a $5 mosquito net.

Does anyone win an argument over this?

As far as i can see no one has argued this or any other system is perfect.

I am not sure why you think anyone would want to argue that a system where on one side you have people that may be telling the truth or lying and on the other side people might be under pressure to make a certain decision about events in a far off land would always produce the correct outcome ( where the correct outcome may be the opposite of what you want ).

What you have in this case, is a person who did not convincingly show over 4 years that he might be in unwarranted trouble if he was returned after claiming and being turned down for asylum, plus a lot of shout-y posturing and bog all evidence that he has come to harm.

Can you envisage a scenario where, he might have tried it on, failed to get asylum, been returned to his own country and just decided not to get in touch with some people he had promised to call ?

Very few systems are perfect. But this is a system that incentivizes its staff to get particular outcomes, and which sets arbitrary targets for appeal rejections (which are nearly 50% higher than the historical rate). Oh, and an appeals process which was just found unlawful and which almost certainly reduces the likelihood of successfully appealing, but which we're still using anyway.

Despite which, the successful appeals rate is IIRC roughly 12 times higher than the criminal appeals rate which suggests the initial decisions are pretty unreliable. Theresa May's office withdrew 3000 immigration decisions unchallenged in 2013 after an appeal was lodged. So even the Home Office itself clearly has no faith in those decisions.

Imagine you're depending on a legal process, and you know that historically 50% of people will win their case, but a new rule has been brought in that says now only 30% should win.

This isn't imperfect- it's broken, and by design. And what do these decisions and these numbers suggest about the government's approach as a whole?

Does anyone win an argument over this?

^My thoughts entirely.

Man goes through legal system including numerous appeals and loses

STW masses with far less info than anyone involved in decision making process decide decision was wrong..

shocker...

I'll of course take back this sentiment if actual proof of harm of this individual is forthcoming, but until then...

STW masses with far less info than anyone involved in decision making process decide decision was wrong..

Probably sums up very many threads on here, but its a forum how else would it work.

[quote=ninfan opined]None of that reply attempts to say we got this decision wrong

😆

Well played.

Can you envisage a scenario where, he might have tried it on, failed to get asylum, been returned to his own country and just decided not to get in touch with some people he had promised to call ?

I am sure we can both imagine these entirely plausible scenarios
NW explains rather eloquently why one is made more likely by this givts policies

Someone has to make hard choices... If no one did we'd all be in trouble. Also, how much do you think the country should spend investigating each case and coming up with that choice?

That said, I hope the guy is ok.