After reading the telegraphs article on the 7th most of the issues began to look cynical to me!

“The news article has a sense of irony for me when I see statements such as “Tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers given right to work” dated the 7th of August 2010. I am the child of a British born mother and historically I have always been discriminated against even those of the rights of my own siblings. I was born before February 7th 1961. Over the last few years because of security fears, id card laws, and also the UKBA seeking funding for their staffs salaries a variety of measures have been taken against all a specific group of children born abroad to British mothers. This group have had some rights in the past and in theory these rights still exist. They were not allowed to be automatic nationals but instead had a statutory right of the right of abode which gave them equality in status inside the UK as does to British citizens and the right not to be subject to immigration control and permissions. A few years ago the UKBA dreamt up a need to charge fees for these people by inventing an excuse that these people were somehow a security risk. They have also had to bear the price of having to reapply for new certificates that allow them to prove their rights. Year on year these fees keep going up and the use of this method has amounted to indirectly controlling this groups right to work. Apparently they cannot block my right to work only the evidence that I am free to work!

So when I read the news report about asylum seekers given the right to work one cannot help by feel ironic about the fairness of Britain today.
Last year I watched very carefully the passage of the 2009 immigration bill as it was brought in January of this year. To me it heralded a long outstanding grievance as to why I was not British and be treated the same way as my two younger sisters. The fact was I was older from them by eleven months and for that I have forever been treated differently by the UKBA and the nationality laws. It does not matter to me that thousands come in as Tier 1 workers and within five years they become naturalised British citizens, Nor does it matter to me that thousands of asylum seekers have the human right to work. It does matter to me however when I let my passport expire owing to being unemployed and ill and on benefits that I could not pay renewal fees for a new certificate that the UKBA were able to use this as an excuse to prevent me from working, even though the actual right to work has and cannot expire but apparently the evidence to do so does!

Strange as it may sound this is in effect what has been done to many of us who are the children of British mothers, often older, and have a commonwealth parent who for the most part met our mothers while living here in the UK in the 1940s and 1950s. The new law that was suppose to remove this long standing discrimination and finally came in on January the 14th 2010. I had long waited for this as I thought finally I would be able to end this long journey of discrimination that has haunted me ever since I was a sixteen year old boy. But my hopes were soon dashed when I realised we would not be treated equally with those born after 1983 or those born before but to British males. There is a charge involved, it costs £540 currently and requires my having to undergo civil and criminal check of my background and attendance of a citizenship ceremony. I was crushed how could this be the law was suppose to remove the long standing discrimination we have suffered and now I find we are still being discriminated now on the basis of our age. Together with the imposition of fees and by adapting and misrepresenting the law the UKBA have in effect established control over persons they are not suppose to be controlling.

So when I see Asylum seekers have the right to work, and ILE holders can use their expired passports to evidence their ongoing permission to work, and I cannot evidence my on going right to work inherited through my descent from a British mother I cannot help get cynical as to why we seem to be continuously be treated in this way by what is after all our own country !”

If you care for liberty and for equal rights specially for those of us who have the closest of closest blood ties with the country then please show your support by going to the petition and signing. Thanks

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/british-nationality.html

I am willing to give you further details about the case. The man continues to be in danger.

Thanking You
Lukengo Yengo Diansangu

Stops turning up to work, gets fired, sob story in the media.

Waaaaah my heart bleeds.

In my opinion that is truly unproffesional and should take immediate action against them. My partner came hear needing help as he was in danger in his own country and felt he was safe in this country, nothing about getting free housing or benefits because he also like many others receives a voucher card, thats not exactly luxury is it?? So that statement is so untrue. I’m glad that there is an investigation about the allegations of what louise perrett have said and treat the staff as they treat the asylum seekers ( like criminals)…

On the subject of the substantive content of the article I am still comfortable that the piece presents the allegations as allegations and nothing more. As I said previously I honestly don’t know Bethan’s perspective on whether they are true or not and there is a degree to which that is not relevant – the piece presents the allegations as allegations and that is all.

Incidentally, regardless of the content of the article, the point has been made repeatedly in this thread that these are only allegations and are not yet proven. And, I repeat, the article headline in particular and its wording in general make that clear.

There should be an opportunity for fair comment on matters of great public interest such as this and I for one was pleased to have the allegations brought to my attention.

“And as Duncan Higgitt mentioned, it seems the ‘culture’ in the office was to deport asylum seekers regardless of their circumstances. I hardly think therefore that the free housing, health service argument stands here.

Asylum seekers can’t claim any benefits in their first year of asylum in the UK anyway, and they must rely ( humiliating though it is) on a token system to be able to pay for food, and they cannot get paid for work.

Many of the asylum seekers, or those in the process of seeking asylum that I meet volunteer in their local communities, and are integral to many charities weathering the economic storm. They are frustrated that the CANNOT contribute to our economy, and show how hard working they are.

If Financer wants to discuss immigration policy then that is all well and good, but I urge him not to confuse this with what is currently happening in the UK Border Agency, or to take away from the urgency of investigating the matter. We need to get to the bottom of how this type of attitude has been allowed to be accepted as a norm.”

Furthermore, it is evident that Bethan Jenkins is completely ignorant of the asylum process. Contrary to what she has written, asylum seekers are entitled to ‘benefits’, including cash, accommodation and free healthcare, in their first year of asylum and throughout the process until their case is concluded.

The token system is only used when the asylum seeker’s claim has been refused and they have no further right of appeal, i.e. when they have no legal right to remain in the UK and should be making arrangements to return to their home country.

It is also worth noting that an asylum seeker has never been deported as it would be against the law. The only people deported from the UK have either never claimed asylum or are FAILED asylum seekers, i.e. their claim has been refused and this decision upheld by an independent body, namely the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

If Bethan Jenkins is criticising the Home Office for deportations, she is also criticising Senior Immigration Judges who are undoubtedly more qualified and experienced to make decisions of this nature than her. So much for the ‘culture’ of deporting asylum seekers.

I wonder if Bethan Jenkins even knows how many failed asylum seekers were deported from the UK in the last year? If she took the time to find out, I think she may realise the weakness of her argument.

Yet more irresponsible comments from our elected representative!

Speaking of due process, one must question why, if Ms Perrett’s claims hold credence, she did not follow the internal complaints procedures of the Home Office? Should she, as she claimed, have raised the issue with one manager and received an unsatisfactory response to her concerns, there are readily available procedures for taking one’s grievance to the highest levels. Instead, she chose to go to the media (well, the media who would accept her account, not those who declined to run her story) and conduct a public trial, one in which those who have been implicated will never have a right of response in the media as they are bound by the rules of civil service (some people actually take such obligations seriously). It speaks volumes how quickly this story died in the media.

Before you respond that individuals have not been named in the media, consider two things. They have been named within their organisation and are (rightly – whether it is just or not) subject to investigation. And how would you feel if the organisation you work for was blanket-labelled ‘Racist’ on the say so of one temporary agency member of staff? Shame on you, Bethan Jenkins, for propagating Ms Perrett’s allegations in this way instead of supporting the investigation and witholding judgement until the results of the investigation. Please consider holding your tongue until you are in possession of the facts, rather than subjective opinion from one side.