Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Asylum Seekers Face Glasgow Exodus
Glasgow Boards/Forums > GG Discussions > Glasgow News Blog
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
jamjar51
QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 2nd Dec 2010, 08:45am) *
I do not recall mentioning Jamaica. Please be a decent chap and help. rolleyes.gif

You need help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah well we learn something new every day but of course always an exception to the rule.

Now shall we start at the beginning and discuss the fact immigrants have slaughtered British people or do you wish to continue going off at a tangent attempting to deflect from your misleading post.

laugh.gif
GG
Reading extracts of exchanges between MPs and Damian Green (UK immigration minister) at Westminster, it seems this whole scenario was a bit of a storm in a teacup – though the wider issues are obviously very important to many people. According to the debate (copied below), UKBA decided to end its contract with Glasgow City Coucil after it established that the charitable sector was willing to provide the same service at a "significantly less" price than the public sector.

Asylum seekers will, under UKBA plans, still come to Glasgow, and they will still be housed mainly in Glasgow Housing Association accommodation; the only difference is that the process will be overseen by Ypeople and the Angel Group rather than the council. Time will tell, though, whether effectively cutting the local authority out of the process will cause problems with the provision of support services.

16 Nov 2010
QUOTE
Asylum: Glasgow

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision to terminate the UK Border Agency housing contract with Glasgow City Council was taken; for what reasons the contract was terminated; whether the UK Border Agency is liable for payments to Glasgow City Council as a result of the early termination of the contract; with what providers the UK Border Agency intends to rehouse asylum seekers following the termination of the contract; what type of accommodation will be provided; and what discussions the UK Border Agency had with Glasgow City Council on the housing contract before termination occurred. [23917]

Damian Green: A contract review allowed the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and Glasgow city council to review the terms of the contract. Discussions were held over a period of months but the two parties were unable to reach agreement on the costs of housing asylum seekers despite the UKBA offering an increase on what are, already, the highest accommodation charges in the UK outside London. I agreed with the final decision to terminate the contract with Glasgow city council just prior to the termination letter being issued on 5 November 2010.

Asylum seekers currently accommodated by Glasgow city council will be transferred to either Glasgow YMCA or to the Angel Group and will be provided with suitable housing to the equivalent standards as that supplied by Glasgow city council. We are hopeful that in many cases they will be able to remain in the same accommodation. The agency will be liable for early termination costs which have not yet been determined. These costs will be significantly lower than the savings that will now be realised by moving service users to alternative providers already operating in Glasgow.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what daily rate the UK Border Agency paid for asylum seeker accommodation with Glasgow city council. [23928]

Damian Green: This information is commercially sensitive and the disclosure of such rates would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of both the Home Office and those companies and local authorities with whom the Home Office enters into contracts but they are the highest in the UK outside London.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what daily rate the UK Border Agency will pay for asylum seeker accommodation with replacement providers following the Agency's decision to terminate its housing contract with Glasgow city council. [23929]

Damian Green: This information is commercially sensitive and the disclosure of such rates would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of both the Home Office and those companies and local authorities with whom the Home Office enters into contracts.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the UK Border Agency has made of the costs incurred by asylum seekers in moving accommodation following the Agency's decision to terminate its housing contract with Glasgow city council. [23930]

Damian Green: The incoming accommodation providers will manage and pay the costs associated with moving asylum seekers to alternative accommodation.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) individuals and (b) families the UK Border Agency is housing in accommodation managed by Glasgow city council. [23932]

Damian Green: As of 8 November 2010 Glasgow city council were supporting 274 individuals and 334 families, a combined total of 1,271 individuals.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timescale is for moving to alternative accommodation asylum seekers housed with Glasgow city council. [23933]

Damian Green: The contract with Glasgow city council will terminate on 3 February and we will transfer those affected to an alternative provider by this date. This may not require a physical move given that one of the other accommodation providers in Glasgow also uses Glasgow Housing Association as a provider of accommodation.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance the UK Border Agency plans to provide for asylum seekers with removal costs following the Agency's decision to terminate its housing contract with Glasgow city council. [23934]

Damian Green: Removal costs will be the responsibility of the incoming provider and not for the affected asylum seekers.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions the UK Border Agency had with (a) UK Ministers, (b) the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Refugee Council prior to the Agency's decision to terminate its housing contract with Glasgow city council. [23936]

Damian Green: The UK Border Agency advised Home Office Ministers of the intention to terminate the contract and also informed officials at the Scottish Government and the Scottish Refugee Council of the likelihood of termination and of the final decision to terminate the contract prior to the formal termination letter being issued on 5 November 2010.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any asylum seekers being re-housed from accommodation with Glasgow city council will be moved to accommodation outside (a) Glasgow city and (b) Scotland. [23937]

Damian Green: There are no plans to move asylum seekers currently supported by Glasgow city council either outside of Glasgow or Scotland.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice has been issued by the UK Border Agency to asylum seeker tenants of Glasgow city council regarding their re-housing. [23939]

Damian Green: A letter has been issued to all service users currently accommodated by Glasgow city council in Glasgow Housing Association properties advising them of the possibility that they may be moved to alternative accommodation and offering details of support available to them if they have any queries. Further communication is planned to keep the service users advised of future developments.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the UK Border Agency will be contracting with any organisations to assist tenants moving from Glasgow city council accommodation. [23940]

Damian Green: The responsibility for providing support and accommodation to service users moving from Glasgow city council rests with the incoming accommodation provider. The incoming accommodation provider will be one of our two remaining regional accommodation providers. The Scottish Refugee Council will be in a position to provide additional advice if required.

GG.
GG
18 Nov 2010
QUOTE
Asylum: Glasgow

Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what future arrangements her Department plans to make for asylum seekers in Glasgow following the termination of the contract between the UK Border Agency and Glasgow city council for the provision of accommodation and other services to asylum seekers. [24118]

Damian Green [holding answer 15 November 2010]: We will transfer those affected to an alternative provider operating in Glasgow by 3 February 2011. The affected service users are currently accommodated, under a sub contract arrangement, with Glasgow Housing Association. The other accommodation provider to whom we are transferring service users also uses Glasgow Housing Association (GHA) as a provider of accommodation, so no physical move of service users may be necessary.

Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her Department's policy is on the future dispersal of asylum seekers to Glasgow. [24119]

Damian Green [holding answer 15 November 2010]: Asylum seekers will continue to be dispersed to the remaining two housing providers in Glasgow, that is Angel Group and YMCA Glasgow.

19 Nov 2010
QUOTE
Asylum: Glasgow

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the effects of asylum seekers moving from Glasgow city council accommodation on requirements for individuals to report at reporting centres or police stations. [23931]

Damian Green: We are very hopeful that the vast majority of service users will be able to remain in their current accommodation. Where this is not possible accommodation will be sourced by alternative providers operating in Glasgow and they will take into account the need for service users to be within a reasonable distance of a reporting centre.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value was of the UK Border Agency's housing contract with Glasgow city council; and what the value is of contracts with the replacement suppliers. [23935]

Damian Green: The current estimated annual value of the contract held with Glasgow city council is 8.610 million. The estimated current annual values for Glasgow YMCA and Angel Group (Scotland) are for 6.516 million and 2.706 million respectively. The value of the YMCA and Angel Group contracts will increase as and when the Glasgow city council service users transfer to one or both providers but we cannot estimate what the future contract values will be at the present time. The additional costs paid to Glasgow YMCA and/or the Angel Group will be significantly less than the current expenditure to Glasgow city council.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the minimum notice period will be for asylum seekers being moved from accommodation with Glasgow City Council; and whether tenants will have any right of appeal. [23938]

Damian Green: The intention is to give any affected asylum seekers who need to move accommodation minimum notice of between three and five months. However, given the common use of Glasgow Housing Association by both Glasgow city council and YMCA the UK Border Agency hope that the numbers who have to move property will be minimal. Where a move has to take place accommodation is provided on a no choice basis and there is no right of appeal, just as it is on initial dispersal.

Asylum: Social Services

Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will publish her Department's assessment of the cost effectiveness and quality of social care services provided by Glasgow city council in respect of asylum seekers based in the city of Glasgow; and if she will make a statement. [25332]

Damian Green: There is no assessment with regards to the quality of social care services provided by Glasgow city council in respect of asylum seekers based in the city of Glasgow. The Secretary of State has no plans to make a statement.

GG.
Guest
Thanks GG, very interesting reading. I'm glad to see that Willie Bain, MP for Glasgow North East, is taking an active interest in developments.
wee davy
So,... looking at that - it would appear that all along, they were/are neither 'failed' asylum seekers - or illegal immigrants but bonafide asylum seekers.

Thank you GG.
Dunvegan
Illegal entrants, asylum seekers, to sanitise this issue for public consumption have become a new "cause celebre' among the "activists" who can not seem to get on with their trivial lives without involving the rest of society. In Australia we have a virtual invasion of "asylum seekers" bent on forging a new and subsidised lifestyle for themselves and extended families. According to Canadian and Australian government figures, 70% of those "asylum seekers" from Tamil Nadu return to the country they fled, presumably to set up their own "refugee" excursion scheme and collect their extended families to return to the welfare paradise. Over 40% of those arriving here illegally go on the dole and stay there for a lifetime.

Those who have been denied refugee status by the U.N. for various reason, incuding terrorist associations, criminality and downright lies, are still able to legaly challenge Australias laws to refuse them. Who benifits? the bleeding hearts, the greens, the extreme socialist left and lawyers.
Who pays for it ? Those trapped for up to 15 years in rotten refugee camps desperate for settlement anywhere. 100% of those "asylum seekers " have never even seen the out side of a refugee camp.

Stop the emotive outprourings and give a thought to real refugees, suffering horror conditions of starvation and deprevation in unsanitary squalid camps where their only hope is denied them by fee paying queue jumpers and welfare cheats.
wee davy
Hello Dunvegan

A very interesting post on what is an equally difficult subject in your part of the world.

Your closing statement, was especially poignant;
QUOTE
Stop the emotive outpourings and give a thought to real refugees, suffering horror conditions of starvation and deprevation in unsanitary squalid camps where their only hope is denied them by fee paying queue jumpers and welfare cheats.

I'm assuming the 'emotive outpourings' you refer to, are those which have in the main been expressed by posters regards immigration policy? (or the lack of a coherent/adequate one for many years, in the UK?), sparked by the treatment of the 'Glasgow 1300'.

If it wasn't for those comments being expressed by people 'living it' then I personally wouldn't have a CLUE about the strength of feeling felt, towards those officially seeking asylum.

You have had, and no doubt continue to have your own specific problems.
I'm sure there are many things we can learn from you, as we experience what has become an EXPLOSION in recent years, which we have not been responding to, adequately.

You may have noticed, I myself have been dismayed by some posters open expressions of hostility towards people who may have genuine cause to seek asylum from their birthplace.
Distasteful though it may be, it is only through open and honest debate we can understand and assimilate the social implications for EVERYONE who is involved or affected.

btw please keep on posting - I notice this hasn't been the first positive one of yours.

None of us are about to change the world overnight - but you never know just WHO might be reading! Perhaps someone with sufficient influence to actually MAKE that difference, for us!
droschke7
All due respect but the people being moved are Asylum Seekers they have as yet not been granted asylum. They do however demand more rights than the indigenous population are receiving. I do notice thowever that one of the rights they are not demanding is the right to leave.......
wee davy
Hi droschke

QUOTE
They do however demand more rights than the indigenous population are receiving

The mere fact you talk about 'indigenous populations' and 'THEY' tells me its highly unlikely you have ever MET an asylum seeker - much less talked to one - and ASKED them, what 'rights' they allegedly demand MORE of?

If you were in another country,... fearful of being sent back from whence you came, would YOU be DEMANDING more rights than the hand that offers you succour, and friendship?
Methinks, NOT a good move.
refugee
QUOTE (droschke7 @ 3rd Dec 2010, 11:48am) *
All due respect but the people being moved are Asylum Seekers they have as yet not been granted asylum. They do however demand more rights than the indigenous population are receiving. I do notice thowever that one of the rights they are not demanding is the right to leave.......

I am absolutely certain that you are a very intelligent person who will not make unfouded claims or allegations. I think the part where you proved the demands have been omitted, probably in error.

Could you please re-post to show the demand of more rights as you allege above?

They wont demand the right to leave because they already have it. They however dont want to leave to the same place from where they fled. Is it not human nature to flee when you are confronted with something that you are obviously never going to defeat?
Dunvegan
QUOTE (wee davy @ 3rd Dec 2010, 12:20pm) *
Hi droschke


The mere fact you talk about 'indigenous populations' and 'THEY' tells me its highly unlikely you have ever MET an asylum seeker - much less talked to one - and ASKED them, what 'rights' they allegedly demand MORE of?

If you were in another country,... fearful of being sent back from whence you came, would YOU be DEMANDING more rights than the hand that offers you succour, and friendship?
Methinks, NOT a good move.

To Wee Davey,
It seems that you have concerns with the fate of "asylum seekers" . As I am not familiar with the conditions or origins of the Glasgow asylum seekers I cant really comment on their condition as I was refering in general to the commercial phenomena of "asylum seekers" in an Australian / Canadian context. First let me make it clear, as a victim of bigotry in the country of my birth I have no racial or discriminatory axe to grind. I have on this form been quoted as having a "non positive opinion", by someone who obviously treasures the political correctness of the pseudo leftists. This also has connotations of the "brave new world" syndrome much valued by the aforesaid.
As to indigeneous populations, If the time effort and being spent on the welfare tourists, who in their determination to reach Canada and Australia, countries known for their generous welfare policies, as is indeed the U.K., bypass at least a dozen countries of 1st asylum, then we would have no "aborigional problem". If the conditions that our people suffer were to be suffered by asylum seekers , the outcry would be heard around the world.
The "asylum seekers" to Canada and Australia pay substantial sums to get to those countries. They are enouraged and prepared to do so by people smugglers who make millions of dollars per boat load. They are also primed with tape recorded messages informing them on what course of action to take regarding legal asssistance and rights under international convention. They arrive in orginized "tourist trips" and drain they ecconomy to the extent that experts are predicting the imminent collapse of the legal refugee and migrant intake.
Take the time, as one respondee said for informed and rational debate. This however seems to be anathmetic to the activists of political and moral correctness
wee davy
I've PM'd you Dunvegan - I'm sorry, but that was all a bit too much for my poor wee brain laugh.gif

regards, davy
jamjar51
I would like to congratulate everyone on this thread, it must be the first time a subject like this has ben aired without the usual screams claiming racism. People have aired their points on both sides without it degenerating into a rammy. RESPECT to all of you.
TeeHeeHee
QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 4th Dec 2010, 10:05pm) *
I would like to congratulate everyone on this thread, it must be the first time a subject like this has ben aired without the usual screams claiming racism. People have aired their points on both sides without it degenerating into a rammy. RESPECT to all of you.

That's because the screamers are missing ... or banned tongue.gif biggrin.gif
wee davy
zatno racist tae wards screamers?

Ahm tellin Harriet Harman!
Rab-oldname
Re your post #261 Dunvegan. I agree with every word you wrote. I have been pushing the same message for the past 20 years since I left my 5 year attachment with the UK Immigration Service where my eyes were fully opened. The situation has avalanched since then, no thanks to Labour and the m/billions that have been squandered on these scroungers. No-one is suggesting that all asylum seekers are such but my personal experience has shown that the majority are. *For 'asylum' please read 'free hand-out'.
wee davy
QUOTE
No-one is suggesting that all asylum seekers are such but my personal experience has shown that the majority are.


Rab,
I can assure you it has OFTEN been suggested or implied, in this topic. By continuous deliberate reference to asylum seekers, as a 'catch all' term - and by more than one poster.
However, I respect & bow to your 'inside gen' on the issue regards immigration.
(Bearing in mind the world has changed considerably, in over twenty years!?)

So,... maybe YOU might like to give us an idea of HOW MANY of the 'Glasgow 1300' who were served with eviction notices in early November, might be OFFICALLY 'asylum seekers' - and how many are likely to be either failed applicants, or simply illegal immigrants?

I've all but posed this question to the 'horse's mouth' - but have not had ONE person give me any form of reply. (I certainly do not expect a direct answer from the authorities themselves!)

I have simply been GENUINELY trying to be a voice for those people who have none.

If, as you suggest, there are very few genuine cases - then surely this is all the more reason to maintain clear distinctions?

I am curious as to how so many apparent illegals, continue to enter the country. Is it the basics?
The guidelines handed down? Or is it the interpretation of the rules and regs?
bilbo.s
Davy,

We are all surrounded by incompetence, alas.
TeeHeeHee
Davy, if an Official can't tell you then you're floggin' a dead 'un here.
Rab, where's that 'orse? rolleyes.gif
GG
QUOTE (wee davy @ 6th Dec 2010, 08:43pm) *
... So,... maybe YOU might like to give us an idea of HOW MANY of the 'Glasgow 1300' who were served with eviction notices in early November, might be OFFICALLY 'asylum seekers' - and how many are likely to be either failed applicants, or simply illegal immigrants?

I've all but posed this question to the 'horse's mouth' - but have not had ONE person give me any form of reply. (I certainly do not expect a direct answer from the authorities themselves!)

I have simply been GENUINELY trying to be a voice for those people who have none.

If, as you suggest, there are very few genuine cases - then surely this is all the more reason to maintain clear distinctions? ...

Hi wee davy,

According to the Guardian article I referred to earlier, the "majority" of asylum applications (across the UK) are rejected and, after the appeals process is gone through, those who refuse to leave are officially termed "illegal immigrants" and are subject to forcible deportation. As the Guardian put it:

QUOTE
Statistics are not available by region but most of those 22,000 applications [from Glasgow based asylum seekers] are likely to have been refused. Subsequently, some will have left voluntarily. But hundreds, if not thousands, of failed asylum seekers who have been sent to Glasgow over the last decade may still be living in the city as illegal immigrants.

To answer your question: all of the 1300 people who received the letters would have been 'asylum seekers' as their application for asylum was still being processed.

The following – from the Refugee Council – might help explain the process:

QUOTE
In the UK, a person is recognised as a refugee only when their application for asylum has been accepted by the Home Office. When a person has lodged an asylum claim with the UK Border Agency (UKBA) at the Home Office and is waiting for a decision on their claim, s/he is called an 'asylum seeker'.

An asylum applicant is granted refugee status if they meet the criteria laid down in the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. If the asylum application is initially refused, the applicant has appeal rights with the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

If the asylum application is granted, the refugee will only be granted limited leave, initially for five years, after which their case will be reviewed. This applies only to those who have received refugee status since September 2005. Those receiving refugee status prior to this are allowed remain indefinitely.

The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees explained in brief:

QUOTE
The Convention defines a refugee as any person 'who owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to fear is unwilling, to avail himself of the protection of that country - or return to it'.
The core obligation is that of 'non-refoulement', not sending someone back into a situation of possible persecution. Another important obligation is not to penalise asylum seekers for entering a country 'illegally'.

I hope this helps.

GG.
Rab-oldname
How would anyone know the true answer to your question?
wee davy
My question wasn't' who is a genuine asylum seeker, and who isn't, Rab'.
I'm thankful that is not for ME to decide.

GG however, has quite clearly and very helpfully, picked his way through this veritable minefield and he successfully answered my original question for me. The answer being ALL 1300 Glasgow applicants are clearly asylum seekers. FULL STOP. Clearly they never should have been subject to any kind of eviction process, in the first place. If they have applications being processed - then thats the end of that.

As to the wider picture, it is not only wrong, but dangerous, to classify ALL asylum seekers as 'automatically' scroungers from the 'off'. Even IF it is true, the majority turn out to be so.

I just see there as being a whole WORLD of a difference, between those asylum seeking CLAIMANTS - and genuine asylum seekers. I think we can say with confidence - we (as a society) are simply WOEFUL at being able to identify (and successfully DEAL with) those who prove to be illegal.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this debate - this problem is one which has not only disturbed me for some time. Especially when it descends into (perhaps, rightful) indignation, and - lets face it - downright open hostility - towards a vulnerable (albeit small proportion, according to Rab, and the Guardian) of section of society.

I do not pretend to have all the answers but truly I wish for those who are tasked with the responsibility for sorting out immigration problems, get ON with it!

I consider the horse, well and truly 'flogged' smile.gif
benny
QUOTE (wee davy @ 7th Dec 2010, 12:08pm) *
. . . . GG however, has quite clearly and very helpfully, picked his way through this veritable minefield and he successfully answered my original question for me. The answer being ALL 1300 Glasgow applicants are clearly asylum seekers. FULL STOP. Clearly they never should have been subject to any kind of eviction process, in the first place. If they have applications being processed - then thats the end of that. . .

Naw, ah don't think so, Wee Davy. The asylum seekers aren't being evicted from the country, only from a particular place of residence within the country. It's up to the government to decide where they are housed, not the asylum seekers, so there is nothing wrong with their being relocated to different areas, or "evicted" as you put it.
TeeHeeHee
QUOTE (wee davy @ 7th Dec 2010, 11:08am) *
... it is not only wrong, but dangerous, to classify ALL asylum seekers as 'automatically' scroungers from the 'off'. Even IF it is true, the majority turn out to be so.

I consider the horse, well and truly 'flogged' smile.gif

If it's true, why is it wrong?
That's hypocritical.
What are you doing tae that poor nag? rolleyes.gif

jamjar51
QUOTE (GG @ 6th Dec 2010, 11:55pm) *
To answer your question: all of the 1300 people who received the letters would have been 'asylum seekers' as their application for asylum was still being processed.

Not even processed but in possession of housing that our own people cannot acquire so expeditiously. So when the majority have their application refused, as everyone now accepts is the case, why do the majority never get removed and why do these failed asylum seekers continue to inhabit council housing and receive taxpayer's money and burden our social service provision.
Rab-oldname
My dead cuddy seems to have been resurrected! Did anyone see it get up and walk away since my last posting? Anyway, just in case you missed it boys ..............

Click to view attachment
wee davy
LOL laugh.gif
Rab-oldname
QUOTE (wee davy @ 7th Dec 2010, 09:12pm) *
LOL laugh.gif

If you go on like that much longer someone on here will be reporting you to the RSPCA wink.gif
Royal Society for Protection of Asylumseekers.
wee davy
slightly off track - but still proves our beloved hierarchy simply tinker with the issues

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...ripe-abuse.html

(promise not whip anymore! lol)
Beatrice McArthur
I grew up in Anderson ,Glasgow in the 1940's. and left 1961. There was a great deal of poverty and hunger but everyone made do. Housing was a "single end" with a toilet downstairs for four families. Everybody shared whatever they had. Every one you met was a Glaswegian. We waited many years to be moved to a flat with electricity. The City deceided where you could live.

What constitutes true "asylum"? How do you prove it? We all want a better life but that comes with hard work. Why would someone work for minimum wage when public assistance pays them more to sit home. On a recent trip a business owner said, when speaking on immigration, "they're given crash courses on how to play the system before they come here.We don't have a chance". Too many cultures pushed together in Glasgow will in time give rise to riots. Look at London? What we give willingly will be forgotten when we are expected to change and submit to those other cultures. Last year it was Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. We want to offend no one.

I dearly love Scotland, it will always be my home. We were a tough and hard working people who stood up for what we believed in. Glasgow has been responsible for many of the inventions that changed the world. We must put our own people first, especially the elderly.
Guest
Luckily the people aren't moving too far from Glasgow. Apparently Newton Mearns and Bearsden have offered to take them.
GG
Can you confirm the source of your information, guest? Newton Mearns and Bearsden do not exist as a decision-making entity, they are part of East Dunbartonshire Council, and there has been no annoucement to the effect that EDC will be taking any asylum seekers displaced from Glasgow.

On a related note, the UK Government's Scotland Office minister, David Mundell, was in Glasgow this week to discuss the cancellation of UKBA's contract with Glasgow City Council to manage the housing of asylum seekers in the city.

Mr Mundell is quoted as saying:
QUOTE
"I recognise the very important role that Glasgow has played and will continue to play in helping asylum seekers.

I am keen for all of the partners to work together to ensure that the change in housing management arrangements are as smooth as possible with minimum disruption to the asylum seeker community.

A key part of that is a clear communications strategy, so that those asylum seekers who are effected by the change in their housing provider are kept informed of any changes.

We also need a realistic timetable for the process and UKBA are reviewing the proposed date of the changeover."

GG.
GG
An update to this story in the news today:

Damian Green, the UK immigration minister, has apologised for the letter sent to asylum seekers telling them that they faced being evicted from their homes with as little as three days notice:

QUOTE
"It was not a good letter to send out. It happened because someone used a standard template in a way that in the circumstances was inappropriate, it may well have caused some distress for which obviously the UKBA apologises and I've taken steps to ensure that letters like that won't go out again."

The contract between the UKBA and Glasgow City Council is still cancelled as a result of the two bodies being in dispute over the costs of providing housing to the asylum seekers. Charities will take over the contracts.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland/Immigrati...te39.6696032.jp

GG.
Dunvegan
QUOTE (GG @ 20th Jan 2011, 08:22am) *
An update to this story in the news today:

Damian Green, the UK immigration minister, has apologised for the letter sent to asylum seekers telling them that they faced being evicted from their homes with as little as three days notice:


The contract between the UKBA and Glasgow City Council is still cancelled as a result of the two bodies being in dispute over the costs of providing housing to the asylum seekers. Charities will take over the contracts.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland/Immigrati...te39.6696032.jp

GG.

GG: I only made reply to this forum to explain the situation regarding illegal migrants in the Australian context and I am in no way familiar with the Glasgow situation regarding illegal entrants to Scotland, or is it the UK. being dealt with?
James Ryan
QUOTE (GG @ 14th Nov 2010, 11:06pm) *
If you wish to comment on this story please remember that asylum seekers (and their families) are some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Please be considerate and respectful in your comments, mindful that many of these very unfortunate people are fleeing unspeakable horror in the countries of their birth.

GG.

Can I just say that international law stipulates that the nearest safe country must accept asylum seekers. The problem for the asylum seekers is that in these countries they will not get free housing, free furniture, free prams for children, free bus passes, free money, free health care as well as free education and free other things so they don't want to stay in the countries nearest to their own. My wife and I made a comment to the Evening Times in the late 90's saying that it was a good thing we were doing for these people. I would be surprised if more than 10% of them are genuine. The UK is making massive cuts all over the board but are still spending billions on people claiming to be something they are not. There has been cases in the news where things like a soldier who lost a leg in Afghanistan was taken of DLA as he could manage to walk with a false leg. The government will not declare how much is spent on these people and all they will say is that the budget is less than last year. I am in no way racist but it is time that there was something done to put a stop to this. People are paying taxes that pay for this but find that there is cuts being made elsewhere.
Dunvegan
QUOTE (wee davy @ 8th Dec 2010, 07:19am) *
slightly off track - but still proves our beloved hierarchy simply tinker with the issues

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...ripe-abuse.html

(promise not whip anymore! lol)

Got your message, but is this a Scottish decision or was it imposed through the actions of the Westminster conglomerate? Bureaucrats do not distinguish between special days or sensitivities; a well known adage. ( I know that's tautology but it looks good on paper.)
wee davy
As I understand it, the UKBA is the overall authority in these matters, anyone else simply acts on their behalf. In this case BOTH and Glasgow City Council were responsible for the debacle.
Dunvegan
QUOTE (wee davy @ 22nd Jan 2011, 12:07am) *
As I understand it, the UKBA is the overall authority in these matters, anyone else simply acts on their behalf. In this case BOTH and Glasgow City Council were responsible for the debacle.

Bureaucrats by any other name!
Heather
What I don't understand is, why foreign Students coming into this Country are allowed to bring their dependents with them and from where do they get the money to live on. wub.gif
GG
The latest news on this topic is that, with just a few weeks left to the proposed transfer of asylum-related services from Glasgow City Council to Ypeople, the council has written to the UK Government claiming Ypeople (formerly known as YMCA Glasgow) has not met legal and financial obligations for staff being moved to the new provider.

The council letter includes:
QUOTE
"We have expressed concern to UKBA [UK Border Agency] regarding Ypeople’s ability and capacity to provide assurances that the transition from Glasgow City Council to Ypeople will take place on April 3.

Our concerns centre around Ypeople’s reluctance to engage with Strathclyde Pension Fund, which we understand they did for the first time on March 2. We are very concerned that this level of uncertainty impacts negatively on the staff group and is also creating a very uncertain future for the support-service users.

Given the current financial circumstances, the council has no option but to pursue Tupe [employment regulations] and ensure Ypeople are able to provide appropriate assurances to both UKBA and our staff group on their intentions re pensions terms and conditions etc."

I'll update the topic to reflect whether the transfer goes through as scheduled.

GG.
GG
One finding from the UK MP investigation into the whole affair, which embarrasses all parties involved, is that a 375,000 scheme to return failed asylum-seeking familes home voluntarily has not persuaded a single family to leave the country. The scheme, run jointly by the UK Border Agency (UKBA), the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council, was predicted to fail after a similar Home Office scheme wasted 1million.

QUOTE
The failure of a 1m pioneering asylum project in England does not spell disaster for a similar scheme in Glasgow, it was claimed yesterday. ...

Asylum pilot's failures 'will not be echoed in Scotland' 25 Jun 2009
http://www.heraldscotland.com/asylum-pilot...otland-1.913252

... but two years later ...
QUOTE
A scheme to encourage Glasgow asylum seekers to return home voluntarily has run up costs of 300,000 but failed to persuade a single family to leave the country, MPs revealed yesterday. ...

Asylum seeker scheme cost 300,000 11 Feb 2011
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/asylum-...0-000-1.1084657
Heather
Why do failed Asylum Seekers have to be persuaded to leave the Country and why are they being bribed with money??

They should be given no money, and as a lot of them came to Britain through France then they should be taken back there and let France deal with them.

With all the cut backs and un-employment in this Country, surely the Government have better things to do with tax payers money than hand it out to people who have no right to be in Britain.
droschke7
QUOTE (Heather @ 13th Mar 2011, 11:10pm) *
Why do failed Asylum Seekers have to be persuaded to leave the Country and why are they being bribed with money??

They should be given no money, and as a lot of them came to Britain through France then they should be taken back there and let France deal with them.

With all the cut backs and un-employment in this Country, surely the Government have better things to do with tax payers money than hand it out to people who have no right to be in Britain.

Too true
ceader bhoy
QUOTE (Heather @ 13th Mar 2011, 11:10pm) *
Why do failed Asylum Seekers have to be persuaded to leave the Country and why are they being bribed with money??

They should be given no money, and as a lot of them came to Britain through France then they should be taken back there and let France deal with them.

With all the cut backs and un-employment in this Country, surely the Government have better things to do with tax payers money than hand it out to people who have no right to be in Britain.

heather where your ancestors not asylum seekers did they not come from ierland ????

Dunvegan
The Irish did NOT come as asylum seekers. They were tribes from Antrim known to the Romans as Scotti and came as settlers, eventually amalgamating with the Caledonii ie. Picta and eventually formed the country Scotland. Try reading the country's history and not basing wild assumptions and statements on prejudice.
Dexter St. Clair
QUOTE
Thirty - Four Glasgow City Council Social Work Services workers’ jobs, pensions and employment conditions are under severe threat due to the decision of Glasgow City Council to compulsorily transfer them to YPeople (formerly the YMCA) as part of the privatisation of the asylum support service. Three of the workers have over 30 years’ service with the council and there is more than 500 years total council service within the workforce, with the average around 15 years. Most of the workers are grades 3 to 5 (16,000 to 24,000). The workers current pension provision will not be maintained and YPeople have said that immediate redundancies are “a likelihood”. Glasgow City Council are basically transferring 34 workers out of local government knowing that some, maybe all, will be thrown on the dole. UNISON believes that an employer the size of Glasgow City Council can find alternative jobs for such a small number of workers. We the undersigned support UNISON’s campaign to protect these workers and call on Glasgow City Council to offer all the workers redeployment within the council

The Christian part of the YMCA has been removed.
Scotsman
With so many false asylum seekers in the system it is a real shame for the genuine ones who are really facing persecution. Time for the government to get very tough with these failed chancers and turf them out.... then the system and the money can be used to help the ones who genuinely need our help.
bilbo.s
QUOTE (Dunvegan @ 14th Mar 2011, 02:20am) *
The Irish did NOT come as asylum seekers. They were tribes from Antrim known to the Romans as Scotti and came as settlers, eventually amalgamating with the Caledonii ie. Picta and eventually formed the country Scotland. Try reading the country's history and not basing wild assumptions and statements on prejudice.

What you say is true, but completely irrelevant with regard to the present part of Scotland's population which claims Irish extraction. Most of them are of far more recent Irish emigration and are there mainly because of the Irish famine . I seriously doubt that anyone can trace their genealogy back to the prehistoric days you describe.

I have some Irish ancestry too, going back to my great,great-grandmother on my mother's side. I do not think you can accuse Ceader Bhoy of prejudice for making a perfectly valid and factual point.
bilbo.s
I meant to say "almost prehistoric days".
Heather
As you say Dunvegan, some people should read their Scottish History. You are correct to say the original Scots came from Ireland.

The Irish Potato Famine was during the 1840s / 1850s and at that time the whole of Ireland was under British rule as Northern Ireland is today.
The Rebublic of Ireland ( Eire ) gained it's freedom from Britain in 1922.
So how can those Irish who came to Britain during the Potato Famine be classed Asylum Seekers??

As for my ancestors, my paternal Irish g'g'father settled in Glasgow after he retired from the British Army.

My maternal ancestors are from Kilsyth, the Burns family, a sept of the Clan Cambell.

This Thread is about Asylum Seekers not our ancestors.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.