Home Office admits it sent asylum seeker’s personal info to the state he was fleeing An asylum seeker has won £15,500 from the UK’s Home Office after it blabbed confidential information about his persecution in his home country - to authorities in the state. In a poorly thought-through attempt to verify the authenticity of a set of documents about the asylum seeker, the Home Office sent them to authorities in …
"only $15k ??"
<cynical mode>
Yeah, you see the problem is that the government really wanted to give more to compensate damages but in order to do that they would have to first determine the social worker who made the mistake and the one who was responsible for making this mistake. You know: to validate the claim. In order to do that every involved step would have to be re-taken to fully trace this back to the source.
Which could create the side effect that the documents could be sent off again, after all: procedures need to be carefully followed in these kinds of situations.
So in order to prevent any of that from happening the choice was made to limit this to 15k only. And as you can see its in everyones best interest to do so!
</cynical mode>
Yeah, obviously I'm joking here but the sad part is that it honestly wouldn't surprise me if this is somewhat the line of thinking which is involved here. Your tax dollars hard at work! The only question: with what?
"we do not disclose information about an individual's asylum claim from that person's home country, or seek information in a way that could expose them, or any family who remain in that country, to serious risk."
But, apparently, they do. It's hard to understand how this happens. Perhaps these are low level grunts who shouldn't be handling this type of thing in the first place?
Maybe we should put the onus on asylum seekers to provide evidence to prove their cases, and stop trying so hard to help them? We doubtless spend a small fortune on each asylum seeker trying to verify their (mostly false) claims, another small fortune looking after them while their cases are considered, and then some small bureaucratic mix-up happens in the process, and here we are paying out again. And what is it, like 4% of failed asylum seekers actually get repatriated in any case, so it's not like they're ever likely to have to deal with the authorities in their home countries; no harm, no foul I say.
You sir are a racist, let me explain.
You put people from other countries above white British people and use your pseudo comments to demean anyone that questions your belief that we should take anyone from anywhere regardless of the cost either monetary or socially. Quoting the Daily Mail is your only response which claims people are bigots when realistically the people you attack are actually happy to help people that need it but are not happy to help people that are here for money and to take from another country without working to help their own. Get it right before you quote the mail because those white supremacists are fuck all to do with normal people,
"You sir are a racist...." Ah, the reflexive bleat of a Leftie do-gooder. It's the standard way you lot attempt to deflect an discussion away from a topic that you have been told is inviolate. Don't like discussing the possibility some asylum seekers are just taking advantage of the system? Immediate response - insist the person raising the point is a racist! The problem is you have over-played that card so much it's beginning to lose any semblance of acceptance in anywhere other than tightly-choreographed Leftie circles.
The best example of this recently has been the response to Trump's enquiring why does the US take so many ill-educated migrants from economically-deprived countries (AKA, "sh*tholes", allegedly), that are burdens on the States, rather than educated people that would be of economic benefit from developed countries? Liberals don't want to discuss that, so they immediately attempt to deflect the question by shrieking: "Rascist! You called those countries sh*tholes! You must be a racist!"
If you are so happy insisting that we must take the "most deprived" then why don't you take them in yourself, or give your money to charities that do so? I personally donate both time and money to charities that help the underprivileged, but I don't reflexively insist that anyone that doesn't do the same is a racist. I consider it a matter of personal choice. Why you think you can insist all taxpayers should unquestioningly watch government money being spent on what you have been told is a "good cause" is the real question, and one you obviously cannot argue beyond reflexive bleating.
"Are refugees burdens on the State? Facts? Figures?" Well, for the US that depends on how you do the sums and how you talk about refugees. Not all refugees are illegal immigrants, and not all end up working illegally, but that seems to be where the figures can best be demonstrated, as noted here due to the political focus. With Trump's recent announcements around foreign aid that may soon change!
As regards refugees, the figures are very complex due to the large number of US government agencies involved, and the fact money goes to refugees both abroad as well as those allowed entry to the US. Even the WaPo, who rarely pass up an opportunity to bash Trump, had a hard time arguing against Trump's claim that the US can care for ten refugees in their own country for each one entering the US legally.
But let's look at the famous Trump "sh*thole" question - average Norwegian vs average Haitian. The majority of people in Norway (91%) speak English and they come from a culture that has many similarities to that common in the US; they have a good average measure of education with 42% of work-age adults holding a degree; and if they are an adult they are likely to have already have some positive work experience (unemployment is about 4%). Compare that to Haiti - 90% of Haitians only speak Creole, and the culture is widely different to the US; literacy only 61% and (due to 90% of primary and secondary schools being private in Haiti) most children attend sporadically and often don't leave until in their mid-20's, and then less than 1% achieve a degree; and unemployment 60% so less likely to have ever worked. It would seem logical that, during their first year in the US, the average Norwegian is going to cost a lot less (if anything given that European immigrants to the US have to cover their immigration costs) due to both his/her better employment prospects and his/her easier integration into US society, and is probably going to be of larger economic benefit throughout his/her life if only through income tax payments.
You could argue that the Haitian refugee can be helped as "lifting them out of poverty", but if we could do the same for ten refugees at less cost in their own country....
The Norway vs Haiti is a false choice because vast majority of people from Norway take one look at the US in 19th place (bottom of the developed nation list) in everything but GDP per capita (sure not how its distributed) and say God why would I put my family in such a worse position emigrating to Mississippi?
Actually Norway is ahead of the US even in GDP per capita lol. Same with Human Development Index. But this can't because God is American (Bowie said so) and American exceptionalism reigns supreme even as our (yep written by an yank) bombs help starve millions in Yemen.
"....would not wish to move to the s***hole that is the USA." That is your own and perfectly valid opinion. But the question is not whether you would want to, it is whether you would want to but couldn't because the visa had been given by preference to someone from a less-developed country that would be a burden to the States. Assuming, of course, you yourself would actually bring anything of value, which might be debatable given that Norway has also taken in a lot of refugees from "sh*thole" countries....
"People from Norway have no problems getting visas. Probably one of the easiest countries to get one from. Supply is not the issue." And the Norwegian diaspora in the US is about 4.5m Norgies, which shows quite a few didn't agree with you about the US. But, there are strict limits on the number of Green cards the US gives out ever year, so it would seem the smart thing to do to make sure those recipients are the best for US rather than a burden. There are three artificial loopholes in the Green Card quotas which are really only for "sh*thole" countries - 50,000 for "diversity immigrants" AKA the lottery, 70,000 for refugees, and supposedly "unlimited" for political asylum. No developed Western country qualifies for the refugee nor political asylum quotas, and the lottery has been tilted for years towards the "sh*thole" countries as people from developed countries are prodded into paying for the "certainty" of the full visa process (which actually isn't certain at all).
But that is merely a deflection from the original question - why should the US burden itself by taking refugees who are unskilled from "sh*thole" countries - such as Haiti - rather than encouraging more immigration of skilled individuals from developed countries - such as Norway?
Those 4.5m Norwegians are not immigrants, they are people that consider themselves norwegian as they are descendants of a Norwegian. Ones that moved in the early to mid 1900s, before Norway struck gold with their oil. Or are you saying that 90% of Norway has left for the USA..
"....they are descendants of a Norwegian...." I never said they were - you do understand what diaspora means, right? But, unless you want to also pretend that Norgies breed like superbunnies, there were a lot of Norgies that decided to emigrate to the US. Which implies a lot of Norgies didn't and don't view the US as a sh*thole.
But you are also dodging the real question regarding why the US shouldn't be more selective of the people it gives Green Cards to.
Yes I know what it means, but you are using the fact that there are a specific number of Norwegians in the USA proves that they don't think its a sh*thole, even though the vast majority of those people have never set foot in Norway. They are descendants of Norwegians, of which the vast majority moved to the USA in the 1800s, greater 400000 of them (1m by 1925). By the start of the 1900s there were over 1m 'Norwegians' in America. They wouldn't need to breed like superbunnies to make 4.5m 'Norwegians'.
Only around 55000 of those 'Norwegians' can even speak their language.
How many Norwegians in 2016 emigrated to the USA and became a citizen, 93.
If you are using their moving to America implies they don't think its a sh*thole, back then America was the land of opportunity, the place where you could do and become anything you wanted.
That time has long past.
why should the US burden itself by taking refugees who are unskilled from "sh*thole" countries - such as Haiti
Maybe because the US is one of the greatest 'contributors' of turning countries into 'shitholes'. Either by bombing them back to the stone age or overthrowing democratically elected governments, because their interests conflict with the interests of the US.
"The Norway vs Haiti is a false choice because vast majority of people from Norway take one look at the US in 19th place (bottom of the developed nation list) in everything but GDP per capita...." I personally know three Norwegians that moved to the US for the purpose of higher education (there is limited choice of higher education institutes in Norway, apparently a lot of Norwegians study abroad), and stayed to work there because it gave them better opportunities (in one case with Apple who had virtually zero presence in Norway). I suggest you might need to actually meet some Norwegians before making any further presumptions.
Oh look you met 3 people so there must be millions. Guarantee there are more people born in the US living in Norway than vice versa if on population alone. Will readily admit though our university system is one of the few things that we really do have going for us to bring in the best and the brightest because its usually not locals. And yet there are still calls to reform it to be more right wing so give it a generation tops before that gets ruined too.
"Oh look you met 3 people....." I would suggest it was a far more representative set of Norgies living abroad than your own experience.
"....our university system...." Ah, so you are a Norgie, and apparently one with zero actual experience of America. This is my surprised face, honest.
"..... is one of the few things that we really do have going for us to bring in the best and the brightest because its usually not locals...." Hmmmmm, me thinks you need to actually do a bit more research. For example, there are only four traditional unis in Norway, the rest are really colleges and tech schools granting Bachelor degrees, which is one of the reasons many Norgies study in Scotland (actually has more traditional unis than Norway). As for the supposed superiority of Scandinavian education, real World experiences seem to show no real difference in results compared to the US.
I think that you misunderstood him / her, I interpreted that as in the USA there are good Unis that do attract people, that is one of the good things in the USA but the best and the brightest usually are not from the USA.
But that's me, the one you think wouldn't be able to get in the US as I moved to Norway years ago, from my sh*thole of a country. Lets see if you can guess which sh*thole that was.
".....I just fucking hate the daily mail.....we are all getting pigeon holed depending on opinions." The problem that arises is when we begin to only seek out information sources that we think will agree with our opinions rather than seeking informed debate. One of the truly immense values of the Internet is that you can seek out sources with a variety of opinions and gain more than one perspective before forming your own, for free, even if it means putting on your mental waders before reading something like the Daily Mail. It seems the problem is too many people think "I don't have time, just give me an instant opinion and some soundbites" rather than forming their own.
History is littered with examples of politically unpopular arguments that were ignored or quashed by the group-think of the day, only for many of those unpopular ideas to eventually gain support and become the norm. If that were not true we'd still be practicing feudalism and slavery, women wouldn't have the vote, and we'd be insisting the Earth was flat.
@ JonathanS
Let me clarify a few facts.
Asylum seeker vs Refugee
1. All arrive as immigrants. They ask for asylum
Many get rejected very quickly as they are from "safe countries". You don't hear of these because, well it doesn't make sensationalist news.
2. Until they have been granted asylum, they cannot legally work. They also can't claim for a huge amount of benefits. What they do get are the basic that everyone else can get, including the white UK family who have never worked in the lives get. As they can't work, they can't get "enhanced" benefits such as (what was JSA)
3. Once granted aslylum, they can work and very often do get work, pay taxes etc etc.
You see the headline grabing "family of 10 in £1million pound house"
What you don't see is the family of 10 in a one bedroom shithole bedsit.
Source:
Social worker that worked with them for 10 years, seeing them become doctors, nurses, cleaners, bus drivers, teachers as well as murder and rape victims, child prostitutes, and homeless.
Homeless shelter worker that help keep them off the streets
ESOL teacher who works to teach them English.
Still I guess you work with these 1st hand as well so know they are all money grabbing scroungers.
>"....you couldn't make it up!" I assume that means you also couldn't actually formulate an argument?
No Jonathan. He was remarking on one bigot (you) accusing another bigot (AC "You sir are a racist") of being a leftie.
You really couldn't make it up - no-one could imagine such stupidity.
"...and Jonathan Schwatrz's "Ah, the reflexive bleat of a Leftie do-gooder" reply... you couldn't make it up!"
I thought nobody else had noticed.
If this is the way J. Schwatrz treats someone who thinks like him, I don't wan't to know what he does with those who disagree!
;^D
"UK is like the US asylum seekers are vetted before they even leave their home country...." Ha! That is so much uninformed manure it's staggering that you can even type it without collapsing in a paroxysm of laughter! Plenty of migrants trying to sneak into the UK immediately claim political asylum when caught as they have been well coached to do so. Many do it when caught many years after illegally entering the UK! If they were so bent on gaining asylum why did they not claim it until caught years later?
And please don't jump to the usual Leftie deflective bleat of "Daily Express so just racism!" Try and actually argue the point and figures mentioned for a change.
"Maybe we should put the onus on asylum seekers to provide evidence to prove their cases, and stop trying so hard to help them?"
We *do* put exactly that onus on asylum seekers. This asylum seeker *did* provide the evidence. Then the immigration service decided it wasn't sure it believed them, so it sent the documents *to the government of the country the poor sod was trying to escape from* for "verification". That is what the case is about.
> Maybe we should put the onus on asylum seekers to provide evidence to prove their cases, and stop trying so hard to help them?
Maybe we should put you in the position of having to jump onto a freight train in the middle of the night, heading for the nearest land border with what you are wearing just as certain gentlemen are busy fucking up the rest of your family?
I feel sorry for little miserable cunts such as your poor self, Mr AC. Bit of a comfortable, blissful existence we have had so far, have we? May it continue like that even if you don't deserve it.
".....It's hard to understand how this happens....." It's because we actually have information-sharing agreements with police and security services in a lot of countries in the Middle East. Ironically, should this asylum seeker apply for a British passport, the first place that will get a request for background info will be the same people he claims are out to get him. The information-sharing agreements are in place partially because plenty of previous claimants have turned out to be nothing more than ordinary criminals and/or economic migrants, faking their human rights abuses, and because a number of previous people granted sanctuary then turned to encouraging or participating in terrorism, such as Alaa Abdullah Esayed in the UK or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_attack#Anis_Amri:>Anis Amri</a> in Germany.
I only hope his family is in the UK ... Middle East => dictatorships/Israel => they will get your family if they cannot get you!
PS: Israel happily punishes the families of people it has categorized as "terrorists", destroying their houses, taking their land etc ... If you do not believe me, check out Jewish Voice for Peace ... a bunch of Jews world-wide condemning Israeli government's behavior.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
