NEWS: UK Conservative Leader Unveils Asylum Plans

Michael Howard, leader of the UK opposition Conservative party, has revealed plans for major immigration reforms should his party be returned to power. The plan has four major parts: to withdraw from the 1951 United Nations Convention on refugees; the creation of new laws to allow the immediate removal of asylum seekers whose claims were clearly unfounded; to stop considering internal asylum applications (all would have to come from United Nations refugee agency camps); and to detain asylum seekers who don't have documents.



I realize this story may not be of huge interest outside the UK, however it is interesting to consider how various countries handle immigration and asylum issues. Countries such as Australia are on one side of the spectrum ("Just Say No"), while the UK has traditionally taken the opposite view ("Come one, come all").

As with many issues, the ideal approach may lie somewhere in the middle. Clearly the UK has been too soft in the past; for example, most asylum seekers pass through several “safe” countries on their way here. If a person is really in fear for their life, surely they should stop and make their asylum application at the first safe place they come to. This factor leads me to believe that the idea of central “camps” might not be such a bad thing – provided, of course, that they are properly and humanely managed, and adequately staffed to allow people to process thorough very quickly.

I believe this is a step in the right direction for the Conservatives, immigration and asylum is mishandled by Labour.
Under the new proposals the immigration and asylum system will be fairer and more practical.

Conservative Web Site News Link

(all would have to come from United Nations refugee agency camps)

This is one of my favourite bits, only those who need help will be permitted to enter Britain.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by UK Wizard]

I really like the idea of a central processing center. (my idea, not the Tories') OK, it sounds "cold & clinical", but I think it could work if it was properly set up and funded.

You could have a large, well-equipped, centrally-located facility. For Europe, East Germany might be a good choice...the right location, and it could inject some much-needed revenue to a relatively depressed area.

Each country would contribute funds and staff according to their ability. (Or, better yet, according to some formula that takes a number of factors into account: GDP, population, amount of available housing, relative popularity as a desired destination, etc.)

All asylum seekers and economic migrants, regardless of where they turn up, would be sent directly to the central facility. Their cases would be examined quickly. They would be given an opportunity to request a specific destination, and extra weight could be given to this request if - for example - they already have family in a particular country.

Every reasonable comfort would be provided during their short stay.

With proper funding, the whole process could be completed in a week or two, with the people either on their way to their new home, or on their way back where they came from. Fair, equitable, and above all humane.

I'd prefer if the UN dealt with who goes where, a euro version would come under control of the EU and it will then become an EU issue rather than a people issue.
With a central processing centre the asylum seekers go from the home country to the centre to the country. 3 stages
Under the tory proposal (i think) they only go from their home country to britain (or other) 2 stages, simpler and more practical.

I think the UN should get off it's arse and work closer with countries to sort out immigration and asylum.

I tend to immeadiately look upon attempts to broadly limit immigration as 'bad'. Of course, there are times when its conceivably the rational thing to do.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I'd prefer if the UN dealt with who goes where, a euro version would come under control of the EU and it will then become an EU issue rather than a people issue.
With a central processing centre the asylum seekers go from the home country to the centre to the country. 3 stages
Under the tory proposal (i think) they only go from their home country to britain (or other) 2 stages, simpler and more practical.

That works for immigrants who are kind enough to signal their intentions before travelling, but what about all the thousands who "just turn up"? Letting them loose in the countryside while their cases bog down in the courts doesn't seem to be working.

My wife says "send 'em back to the first safe country they passed through"; I agree with the sentiment, but it's probably not very workable! (Italy wouldn't be very pleased, for example...)

@ Azeari of the Radiant Eye

Doesn't the conservative plans mean that the 'asylum' seekers are selected from official UN refugee camps, thats fair in my opinion.

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
Michael Howard, leader of the UK opposition Conservative party, has revealed plans for major immigration reforms should his party be returned to power.

- There is nothing new in any of this, this is the standard right-wing nonsense they always trot out to some degree or another come general election time in the UK.

William Hague in particular did it in 2001, and, much as immigration is a concern of the British, it is not going to be the issue anyone decides the 'colour' of our gov over (ditto Europe and the EU, by the way).

This is merely scrapping out the bottom of the tory barrel - the surprise is just how quickly we got here. And why? Here's a clue....

MICHAEL HOWARD’S election guru has told him that the Conservatives have no hope of winning the next general election......

......His findings are similar to those in a Populus poll last weekend, which suggested that Labour is heading for another 160-seat landslide and that the Tories may lose seats.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

(Hague and the tory party were thrashed in 2001 by the way)

Tory plans to cut immigration to the UK are not racist and will make the asylum system fairer for genuine refugees, Michael Howard has said.

- Well there is also the point that these cretins while attempting to appeal to every xenophobic petty racist they are also high-lighting the fact that Howard is himself the 1st gen son of eastern European Jewish immigrants to that 'crowd'.
But then crass stupidity has become the hallmark of todays tory party if nothing else!

I realize this story may not be of huge interest outside the UK, however it is interesting to consider how various countries handle immigration and asylum issues. Countries such as Australia are on one side of the spectrum ("Just Say No"), while the UK has traditionally taken the opposite view ("Come one, come all").

- I'm sorry but this is simply not true.

Whatever the 'public perception' some attempt to propagate, the UK has not got a view of 'come one, come all' and has not had for decades..

Almost every UK gov since the late 1960's has 'tightened' British immigration policy.

As with many issues, the ideal approach may lie somewhere in the middle.

- Well it certainly doesn't lie with appealing to the worst instincts, which is basically what Howard and Co. are at with this. They are attempting to further the lie that the UK now practically lets in any and all in.
This is absolutely false; an outright lie no less.

Clearly the UK has been too soft in the past; for example, most asylum seekers pass through several “safe” countries on their way here. If a person is really in fear for their life, surely they should stop and make their asylum application at the first safe place they come to.

- For some of the people fleeing as refugees/asylum seekers - and it is only some, the UK does not take greater numbers that everyone else - it is an inevitable consequence of the enormous British empire we once had.

The UK has communities from all around the entire globe here whereas many of the countries refugees might transit through do not.
What would you rather do and where would you rather go to, a community already established possibly with relatives or family friends there or begin that new community yourself?

This factor leads me to believe that the idea of central “camps” might not be such a bad thing – provided, of course, that they are properly and humanely managed, and adequately staffed to allow people to process thorough very quickly.

- Well it's my view that this all begins with a false premise.
On balance it's my view that 'we' are not having something taken away by immigrants rather they ultimately add and enrich our society.

Closed societies do not compare well with open ones in my view.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

MICHAEL HOWARD’S election guru has told him that the Conservatives have no hope of winning the next general election......

......His findings are similar to those in a Populus poll last weekend, which suggested that Labour is heading for another 160-seat landslide and that the Tories may lose seats.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

(Hague and the tory party were thrashed in 2001 by the way)

Tory plans to cut immigration to the UK are not racist and will make the asylum system fairer for genuine refugees, Michael Howard has said.

If i remember right this was proven false, the statement was twisted....and stuff the opinion poll it doesn't mean anything.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
If i remember right this was proven false, the statement was twisted.

- What have you got inside on this Wizard?

Have you read the article? What has been "proven false" or "twisted"?

...and stuff the opinion poll it doesn't mean anything.

- Well if you look not only does the article refer to the latest populus poll but the tory parties' own private polling too - and whatever they say on tv you can bet your shirt that when a party has been dead in the polls for 12yrs+ and their own private polls are confirming this they know exactly what it means, well, all but the blind-believing zealot members do anyway.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- What have you got inside on this Wizard?

news.bbc.co.uk...

Well if you look not only does the article refer to the latest populus poll but the tory parties' own private polling too - and whatever they say on tv you can bet your shirt that when a party has been dead in the polls for 12yrs+ and their own private polls are confirming this they know exactly what it means, well, all but the blind-believing zealot members do anyway.

All polls, whether they show support for Labour or the Conservatives are flawed, as i've said before wait till the general election results before you start bashing Conservative popularity.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
news.bbc.co.uk...

- Oh come on Wizard. A short general denial is your proof?

It's as thin as it gets. If it were really the truth and the Times is lying where is the serious and major legal action?
That would be more like it but this simply reeks of 'they would (have to) say that wouldn't they'.

This is no actual "proof".

All polls, whether they show support for Labour or the Conservatives are flawed, as i've said before wait till the general election results before you start bashing Conservative popularity.

- All polls have the ability to be flawed Wizard, I agree, that is true, but polls which have told you one thing and one thing alone for over a decade are not so easily written off.

We shall of course see in a mere short 3 and a bit months.
Don't be going away anywhere now!

[edit on 24-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

I was watching on Sky News today, when they were analysing the days newspapers headlines. Micheal Howards own lead campaign manager said not to worry about loosing the election, because he has already lost it.

Originally posted by Ishes
I was watching on Sky News today, when they were analysing the days newspapers headlines. Micheal Howards own lead campaign manager said not to worry about loosing the election, because he has already lost it.

- My understanding is Howard knows he will lose but he thinks that he can do better than Hague.
Even a slight improvement will 'justify' himself in his mind (although that is not actually looking too likely at the moment).

If he can improve at all he probably will try to stay on after the poll - and maybe the rest of the tory party will even want him to stay on, but, then again maybe not - but if he cannot improve on Hague's performance, he definitely goes (and the tory party probably disintegrates - couldn't happen to a nicer bunch ).

Then I reckon we will probably see at least a few decades of a British political 'axis' over which Labour and the Lib-Dems operate with the tory remnant coalescing around the UKIP/BNP extreme.

Mind you, all that implies Howard does not lose his own seat to the Lib-Dems who are set on 'decapitating' the tory party - in fact there are several senior tories very vulnerable.
That will be the story of the night, I reckon.


[edit on 24-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Well there is also the point that these cretins while attempting to appeal to every xenophobic petty racist they are also high-lighting the fact that Howard is himself the 1st gen son of eastern European Jewish immigrants to that 'crowd'.

I can't speak for the Tory party's intentions, but I can tell you that some aspects of their proposals on immigration do not only appeal to "xenophbic petty racists"; I am neither xenophobic, petty, or racist, and it appeals to me.

But then crass stupidity has become the hallmark of todays tory party if nothing else!

Slightly overstated, perhaps, but they do have a propensity for shooting themselves in the foot.

Whatever the 'public perception' some attempt to propagate, the UK has not got a view of 'come one, come all' and has not had for decades..

Almost every UK gov since the late 1960's has 'tightened' British immigration policy.

I was attempting to highlight the massive differences in immigration policy within the developed world. Compared to Australia, the UK's policy could be considered "come one, come all".

The UK has communities from all around the entire globe here whereas many of the countries refugees might transit through do not.
What would you rather do and where would you rather go to, a community already established possibly with relatives or family friends there or begin that new community yourself?

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Every European country I've been to has large, varied immigrant communities.

Also,. in the case of true asylum seekers, if I were running for my life - especially if I was with my family - you can be sure I'd stop and claim asylum in the first safe country I came to.

Plus I did say that if this idea of a central facility ever caught on, people could be given priority based on having family ties in a particular country.

Well it's my view that this all begins with a false premise.
On balance it's my view that 'we' are not having something taken away by immigrants rather they ultimately add and enrich our society.

Closed societies do not compare well with open ones in my view.

I don't think anyone wants a closed society. (Well, OK, maybe the BNP and their adherents, but it's certainly not a widespread view.)

Having better immigration control would benefit everyone, including prospective immigrants. I'm not even talking about lower numbers of immigrants, just about finding a way to make the process quicker and more equitable.

[edit on 25-1-2005 by Azeari of the Radiant Eye]

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
I can't speak for the Tory party's intentions, but I can tell you that some aspects of their proposals on immigration do not only appeal to "xenophbic petty racists"; I am neither xenophobic, petty, or racist, and it appeals to me.

- I certainly did not mean to imply you or anyone else here were personally xenophobic, petty or racist.

What I get particularly annoyed about is the manner in which a sensitive subject like this gets turned into a simplistic football come general election time.

I was attempting to highlight the massive differences in immigration policy within the developed world. Compared to Australia, the UK's policy could be considered "come one, come all".

- I'll agree there are variations across the world (obviously).
As I said my 'beef' with all this is the implication that the tories always make that (1) the regulations at the moment in the UK are weak to the point of being practically non-existant - and certainly after Blunketts last 2 bills that is complete garbage and (2) the manner in which they always wheel this topic out to appeal to the worst instincts in persuit of general election votes.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Every European country I've been to has large, varied immigrant communities.

- But you would have to agree that Britain has a greater variety than most, right?

Also,. in the case of true asylum seekers, if I were running for my life - especially if I was with my family - you can be sure I'd stop and claim asylum in the first safe country I came to.

- ....and Britain's previous long record as an internally peaceable, pretty decent and lawfull place is also something bound to appeal above many others too (in combination with the above), right?

Plus I did say that if this idea of a central facility ever caught on, people could be given priority based on having family ties in a particular country.

- The tory idea of processing centres in other countries (without any indication from any country that they would go along with this) is pretty laughable.

As far as the UK is concerned we already have 'holding centres'.

Having better immigration control would benefit everyone, including prospective immigrants. I'm not even talking about lower numbers of immigrants, just about finding a way to make the process quicker and more equitable.

- .....and that is a perfectly fine sentiment. There is absolutely nothing wrong with debating a sensible immigration policy.

....and seeing as the subject is always coming up in Parliament (almost every gov since 1968 has passed at least one Immigration Act in it's 4 yr term) amongst the various Acts they pass that is the time and place to debate this and go to the public with it in consultation.

What it isn't IMHO is a fitting major subject for a general election campaign when we know the manner in which this has been historically siezed upon by the xenophobes and petty racists.

Regardless of anyone else's view there can be little doubt that this is, once again, the same dreary old tory appeal to the lowest stupidest common denominator.

BBC news showed the results of a poll last night.
Members of the public were asked what % they thought Britain's population was 'immigrant'. Men said 18% and women 28%. The actual figure is 4.8%.

It is this kind of ignorance that the tory party is deliberately going after



[edit on 25-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

OK, sminkeypinkey, I think we've reached a reasonable level of agreement.

The Tories are, undoubtedly, clutching at straws. They have no chance of winning in May, which I think is a shame because there's nothing wrong with Conservatism itself. (imho :roll

Confession: I can't even vote in this country, not a citizen. (My wife will vote Tory, though, hoping that they'll reverse the hunt ban...)