Posted on 05/30/2002 5:42:20 PM PDT by Map Kernow
David Blunkett put himself on a collision course with the French government and the British courts last night when he announced plans to expel more than 30,000 failed asylum seekers back across the Channel every year.
The Home Secretary said that "clearly unfounded" asylum claims would be dealt with within days and applicants either returned home or to a "safe third country" through which they had already travelled.
Any appeals would have to be pursued outside Britain.
Refugee groups condemned the plan as "unjust and unworkable". They will almost certainly challenge the measures in the courts on human rights grounds.
Mr Blunkett also risked a diplomatic row with France, whose ambassador in London said the deportations would breach Britain's EU treaty obligations.
Officials conceded last night that the new powers, to be inserted into nationality legislation now before Parliament, would work only if there were agreements with other EU countries. At present there are only two such deals, with Iceland and Norway, both outside the EU.
However, by taking the powers before talks with the new French government, Mr Blunkett hopes to increase pressure on other member states to speed up discussion on a common EU asylum system that would allow the burden of looking after migrants to be shared more equitably.
A Whitehall insider said that the Home Secretary was "not looking for a fight but a solution".
The announcement coincided with the latest quarterly asylum figures, showing that the number entering Britain rose for the first time in more than a year, partly as a result of the trouble in Zimbabwe.
There were 19,500 applications in the first three months of the year - 24,000 when dependants are added - suggesting that this year could bring a record total.
The number of failed applicants who were removed was only 2,445, far below the Government's target of 7,500 each quarter and fewer than in the previous three months. The largest number of applications was from Iraq (2,840) and Afghanistan (2,350). There were 1,495 claims from Zimbabwe.
With the numbers rising again, Mr Blunkett decided to bring forward amendments to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill to allow unfounded claimants to be thrown out "literally within a matter of one or two days".
Rejected applicants from countries considered safe - mainly in eastern Europe - would have to make any appeal from outside Britain after being removed by immigration staff.
The Home Office said the fast-track procedures were similar to those adopted by some other European countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands. However, in both those countries asylum seekers are still allowed to remain while their appeals are considered.
The aim of Mr Blunkett's proposals is to repatriate failed claimants or to send them to a safe third country, which would be France for the thousands who enter through the Channel Tunnel via the Red Cross camp at Sangatte.
Mr Blunkett said: "At present, an individual can make a wholly unfounded asylum or human rights claim then stay in Britain while the appeals process occurs. This is at the taxpayers' expense and can sometimes be for months.
"The Government is no longer prepared to tolerate such abuse of the system. We will return these people to their country of origin as soon as we have rejected their claim."
Daniel Bernard, the French ambassador, said it would not be possible for Britain to return refugees unilaterally to France.
"France is never the first country that they come through," he said. "They come through other EU countries in the Schengen agreement. This is a way of returning to the previous agreement between Britain and France, which was superseded by the Dublin Convention. Britain cannot decide this."
Whitehall officials said that Mr Blunkett intended to hold talks with France once a new government was installed there next month. He also wanted a firm date for closing Sangatte. "He wants the powers on the statute book to give him some clout before the talks," one said.
Keith Best, the director of the Immigration Advisory Service, said: "These proposals are just a knee-jerk reaction. We cannot have much confidence that they have been thought through; otherwise why were they not included in the Bill from the outset? The Home Secretary is trying to exclude effective judicial scrutiny of the actions of the executive. That is unfair, impractical and there is grief down the road here for the Government."
Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, said the plans were "remarkably similar" to Tory proposals before the last election.
"You need to know which countries people can't possibly legitimately be claiming asylum from. With proper safeguards, it might work."
On NOW at RadioFR!
6pm PDT/9pm EDT- Listen to Radio FreeRepublic live tonight, as Lius Gonzales interviews G. Edward Griffin and discusses his book ?The Creature From Jekyll Island. A Second Look At The Federal Reserve?. Find out the true nature of our monetary system and how it affects you!
Hmmm...sounds like you're ready to trot out the usual smears of ethnic bias made whenever any country tries to put a brake on uncontrolled immigration.
What are the "double standards" you're referring to? One standard for citizens, another for foreign entrants? Sounds like you believe any restriction on immigration is illegimate. Maybe you should reflect a little about how those "rich, western" countries got so rich, and whether they'd stay "rich" if they had to support every migrant from another country (like Mexico) that can't provide work or sustenance (or a real voice in its governing) to its own people and only wants to get rid of as many of them as possible so that they can be the problem of some "rich, western" country.
HOWEVER, the "double standard" I was referring to was NATOs bombing of Serbia on behalf of the "poor, oppressed" Albanians. The fact that over 40% of Kosovo's ethnic Albanian population are there ILLEGALLY (and a greater number have entered from Albania as a result of our "humanitarian bombing") was never mentioned in the media.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.