IMMIGRATION
The sacking of Charles Clarke as Home Secretary does not alter the fact that the recent crisis about the release of foreign criminals onto the streets of Britain is not a failure of management, it is a failure of ideology.
The Tories attempt to confine the crisis to one of micro-management should be ignored.
In fact it is somewhat surprising that there has been the crisis at all. It is not as if we have been unaware that foreign criminals were being allowed into the country and allowed to continue their activities even after they had been arrested.
Following the 7/7 and failed 21/7 bombings last year it emerged that many or those involved in the terrorism had been so-called asylum seekers and had had a longstanding criminal background. Yet no one made any effort to correct this lax state of affairs.
[See the English Rights Campaign Quote of the Month dated the 27 September 2005 relating to the criminal past of the terrorist Maktar Ibraihim and the fact that he had still been given a British passport.]
More recently, it has emerged that one terrorist suspect was released when he could have been deported. The Home Office does not know whether this was because he had been considered for deportation but allowed to stay, or because they did not bother at all to assess the merits of deporting him.
The public and the political classes have become resigned to the degeneracy of allowing such terrorists and criminals into the country and allowing them to remain in the country, and even giving them British passports.
Just before the present crisis broke, it was revealed that, Abdullah Baybasin, a Kurdish asylum seeker, had been responsible for 90% of the heroin being smuggled into Britain. He had imported the heroin from Afghanistan via his native Turkey. He had been granted asylum despite the Home Office being fully aware of his longstanding criminal activities, which included firearms offences, drug dealing and blackmail. An immigration court had ruled that as his brother had turned supergrass in Turkey and had identified corrupt Turkish politicians involved in the drugs trade, then Baybasin would be in danger were he returned home.
Baybasin had also made millions from extortion and protection rackets. His organised crime rackets are believed to be responsible for up to 25 murders in Britain. On one occasion his and a rival gang had a fight with knives and guns in broad daylight. Up to 40 gang members were involved and one bystander was stabbed to death.
Baybasin and his family had built up a £5million property portfolio in Turkey and another £5million portfolio worldwide. People traffickers were paying him a £1,000 ‘levy’ for each illegal immigrant.
Baybasin was convicted of conspiring to supply heroin and had also admitted to conspiracy to blackmail and pervert the course of justice.
A more high-profile example of the tolerance of criminality is the highjack drama at Stansted Airport in 2000, when a group of Afghans highjacked a plane and flew it to Britain and claimed asylum. None have been deported.
In fact far from it.
Mr Justice Sullivan, whose recent pronouncement on the anti-terrorist laws have already established his unsuitability to exercise any authority regarding immigration cases [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 19 April 2006], has now pronounced that the Government’s failure to grant the highjackers asylum amounts to ‘conspicuous unfairness amounting to an abuse of power’.
What a pompous ass.
The recent outcry about foreign criminals does not impact upon the judiciary at all. They are too busy wallowing in their own snobby political correctness.
Up to 1,023 foreign criminals were originally thought to have been released rather than deported. This includes rapists, murderers, paedophiles, burglars, robbers, drug smugglers and people traffickers. Many of the criminals had avoided deportation more than once.
This figure is now known to be an underestimate and there are a further 900 prisoners who are refusing to give their nationality. The estimate for the numbers involved is being continually increased - almost on a daily basis.
It seems that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate [IND] was too incompetent to deal with the deportation of convicted foreign criminals once their sentences had been served and/or Labour was trying to massage the asylum figures and so was turning a blind eye to these foreign murderers, paedophiles etc so that they would not claim asylum in order to avoid deportation.
Some of those who have been released have gone on to commit new crimes. Not all of those who commit crimes will of course be caught.
For example, Caliph Ali Asmar, an Iraqi Kurd whose application for asylum was rejected, and who had been jailed in March 2005 for 3 offences of unlawful wounding, possession of an offensive weapon and damaging property, was released on November and is now wanted for the rape of a 15-year-old schoolgirl and attempted murder.
The judge’s recommendation that he be deported was ignored. The Home Office have admitted that they considered deporting Asmar, but had decided he could stay in the UK.
For example, Gheorghe Barnu, a Romanian fraudster, was ordered to be deported in August 2004 after a 2 year jail sentence. But the Home Office served the deportation papers on Barnu 4 months late and did not bother to enforce the order. Barnu proceeded to organise a gang of illegal immigrants who stuck false fronts on card machines in order to clone card details. The gang stole more than £64,000 before they were caught.
It has now emerged that the suspected murderer of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky, Mustaf Jama, is one of those who should have been deported. But it was decided that Somalia was too dangerous to deport him to. Jama had committed a number of robberies.
Jama’s mother arrived in Britain with 7 children from Somalia in 1993, having paid a people trafficker to get here. She had also paid a Kenyan to pose as her husband. She claimed asylum. Jama was granted indefinite leave to remain 7 years later despite the fact that he was already involved in crime. The Criminal Casework Team later decided that to deport Jama, after the end of yet another jail term for robbery, would be a breach of his human rights.
It is now believed that Jama has fled back to Somalia in order to avoid being arrested for the murder of Sharon Beshenivsky.
So Somalia is now a safe haven for criminals fleeing Britain. It is too unsafe to send Somalis back to, but sufficiently safe when it suits the Somalis themselves.
One judge has criticised the Home Office for not bothering to deport a Russian thief. Mohammed Gaparkhoev, a heroin addict and so-called asylum seeker who had arrived in the UK hidden in the back of a lorry, and who had been jailed for breaching an anti-social behaviour order to stop him shoplifting, had been ordered for deportation in 2004. Instead, the Home Office granted him exceptional leave to remain in the UK in February 2005.
Given the blasé attitude to immigration, it must, at first, have seemed all perfectly routine to Charles Clarke. But this time, he underestimated the looming collapse in the Labour vote in the local elections and the ruthlessness of Tony Blair in his quest to cling onto office.
Otherwise, he was determined to ride out the storm and would probably have succeeded in doing so.
All the Tories could do was witter about Labour failing to ‘consider’ the deportation of these criminals. They did not criticise Labour for actually failing to deport them. The Tories did not object to foreign murders, rapists etc being allowed to stay in Britain per se. Only that Labour should have actually ‘considered’ whether or not to deport such people.
This ineffectual wittering by the Tories presented Tony Blair with a perfect opportunity to outflank them. He announced in the House of Commons that the law would be changed so that all such criminals would be deported:
And:
This announcement was calculated to get the good headline, but like most of Mr Blair’s soundbites, it was no more than that. Shortly after, Charles Clarke made clear that there would be no automatic deportations and that it was his intention to have consultations about such a change in the law. Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, has also admitted that not all criminals could be deported and that there would be consultation:
Needless to say, there are a whole host of so-called human rights activists and lawyers raising a whole host of supposed human rights issues as to why such criminals cannot be deported. Even if Labour decided to remove the criminals, it is expected that both the European Court of Human Rights and the EU will declare such a move illegal and a breach of human rights.
The estimate of the numbers of criminals believed to have been let loose is steadily increasing, now that Charles Clarke has gone and John Reid is Home Secretary. Mr Clarke originally estimated that there were 79 freed foreign criminals who were classified as being in the most dangerous category [which excluded armed robbery]. Mr Reid has revised that figure up to 179 and has indicated that the final figure could well run to several hundred.
At least 19 of these criminals have committed new sexual and violent offences since being released, and the total who have re-offended is 57. Only 7 have actually been deported since the crisis broke. The Home Office have already decided that 2 of the most serious offenders will not be deported. Mr Reid is currently unable to explain this decision.
It has now been revealed that those foreign criminals who have been rounded up by the police, are then being let loose again on bail by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal! Those granted bail include a rapist and a paedophile.
It would seem that the politically correct are determined to allow foreign criminals into this country come what may. Not for them the vulgarity of ‘majoritarian politics’.
Meanwhile, it has been revealed by Africans Unite Against Child Abuse [Afruca] that young African girls, some as young as 12, are being brought to the UK for prostitution and/or to be impregnated in order to qualify for council housing. Afruca stated in written evidence to a House of Commons home affairs select committee:
The fact is that the whole concept of mass immigration and so-called asylum seeking is shrouded in the culture of criminality. The British ruling class as a whole is prepared to tolerate that criminality rather than bring mass immigration to an end.
The problem is the dominance of politically correct ideology and the unwillingness to confront it. Many politicians would rather tolerate foreign criminals than risk being called racist.
The extent of the problem, the criminal culture of mass immigration, and the manner in which the so-called human rights industry nurtures that criminal culture was highlighted in the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 22 November 2005.
Nothing has changed and the problem is getting worse.
In reference to the IND, Mr Reid has stated:
That might all be true, but Mr Reid is ignoring the issue of policy. He is proceeding on the basis that Labour’s commitment to mass immigration has nothing to do with the direct in inevitable problems of mass immigration. This particularly applies to the concept of so-called asylum seeking. This is a failure of ideology.
What is needed is a firm rejection of the concept of mass immigration. We need a new immigration policy which will bring mass immigration to an end. To be effective, such a policy must include the withdrawal from both the EU and the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, and a repeal of the so-called human rights legislation.
We further need an emigration policy to remove ALL illegal immigrants, and foreign criminals and political extremists
The Tories attempt to confine the crisis to one of micro-management should be ignored.
In fact it is somewhat surprising that there has been the crisis at all. It is not as if we have been unaware that foreign criminals were being allowed into the country and allowed to continue their activities even after they had been arrested.
Following the 7/7 and failed 21/7 bombings last year it emerged that many or those involved in the terrorism had been so-called asylum seekers and had had a longstanding criminal background. Yet no one made any effort to correct this lax state of affairs.
[See the English Rights Campaign Quote of the Month dated the 27 September 2005 relating to the criminal past of the terrorist Maktar Ibraihim and the fact that he had still been given a British passport.]
More recently, it has emerged that one terrorist suspect was released when he could have been deported. The Home Office does not know whether this was because he had been considered for deportation but allowed to stay, or because they did not bother at all to assess the merits of deporting him.
The public and the political classes have become resigned to the degeneracy of allowing such terrorists and criminals into the country and allowing them to remain in the country, and even giving them British passports.
Just before the present crisis broke, it was revealed that, Abdullah Baybasin, a Kurdish asylum seeker, had been responsible for 90% of the heroin being smuggled into Britain. He had imported the heroin from Afghanistan via his native Turkey. He had been granted asylum despite the Home Office being fully aware of his longstanding criminal activities, which included firearms offences, drug dealing and blackmail. An immigration court had ruled that as his brother had turned supergrass in Turkey and had identified corrupt Turkish politicians involved in the drugs trade, then Baybasin would be in danger were he returned home.
Baybasin had also made millions from extortion and protection rackets. His organised crime rackets are believed to be responsible for up to 25 murders in Britain. On one occasion his and a rival gang had a fight with knives and guns in broad daylight. Up to 40 gang members were involved and one bystander was stabbed to death.
Baybasin and his family had built up a £5million property portfolio in Turkey and another £5million portfolio worldwide. People traffickers were paying him a £1,000 ‘levy’ for each illegal immigrant.
Baybasin was convicted of conspiring to supply heroin and had also admitted to conspiracy to blackmail and pervert the course of justice.
A more high-profile example of the tolerance of criminality is the highjack drama at Stansted Airport in 2000, when a group of Afghans highjacked a plane and flew it to Britain and claimed asylum. None have been deported.
In fact far from it.
Mr Justice Sullivan, whose recent pronouncement on the anti-terrorist laws have already established his unsuitability to exercise any authority regarding immigration cases [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 19 April 2006], has now pronounced that the Government’s failure to grant the highjackers asylum amounts to ‘conspicuous unfairness amounting to an abuse of power’.
What a pompous ass.
The recent outcry about foreign criminals does not impact upon the judiciary at all. They are too busy wallowing in their own snobby political correctness.
Up to 1,023 foreign criminals were originally thought to have been released rather than deported. This includes rapists, murderers, paedophiles, burglars, robbers, drug smugglers and people traffickers. Many of the criminals had avoided deportation more than once.
This figure is now known to be an underestimate and there are a further 900 prisoners who are refusing to give their nationality. The estimate for the numbers involved is being continually increased - almost on a daily basis.
It seems that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate [IND] was too incompetent to deal with the deportation of convicted foreign criminals once their sentences had been served and/or Labour was trying to massage the asylum figures and so was turning a blind eye to these foreign murderers, paedophiles etc so that they would not claim asylum in order to avoid deportation.
Some of those who have been released have gone on to commit new crimes. Not all of those who commit crimes will of course be caught.
For example, Caliph Ali Asmar, an Iraqi Kurd whose application for asylum was rejected, and who had been jailed in March 2005 for 3 offences of unlawful wounding, possession of an offensive weapon and damaging property, was released on November and is now wanted for the rape of a 15-year-old schoolgirl and attempted murder.
The judge’s recommendation that he be deported was ignored. The Home Office have admitted that they considered deporting Asmar, but had decided he could stay in the UK.
For example, Gheorghe Barnu, a Romanian fraudster, was ordered to be deported in August 2004 after a 2 year jail sentence. But the Home Office served the deportation papers on Barnu 4 months late and did not bother to enforce the order. Barnu proceeded to organise a gang of illegal immigrants who stuck false fronts on card machines in order to clone card details. The gang stole more than £64,000 before they were caught.
It has now emerged that the suspected murderer of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky, Mustaf Jama, is one of those who should have been deported. But it was decided that Somalia was too dangerous to deport him to. Jama had committed a number of robberies.
Jama’s mother arrived in Britain with 7 children from Somalia in 1993, having paid a people trafficker to get here. She had also paid a Kenyan to pose as her husband. She claimed asylum. Jama was granted indefinite leave to remain 7 years later despite the fact that he was already involved in crime. The Criminal Casework Team later decided that to deport Jama, after the end of yet another jail term for robbery, would be a breach of his human rights.
It is now believed that Jama has fled back to Somalia in order to avoid being arrested for the murder of Sharon Beshenivsky.
So Somalia is now a safe haven for criminals fleeing Britain. It is too unsafe to send Somalis back to, but sufficiently safe when it suits the Somalis themselves.
One judge has criticised the Home Office for not bothering to deport a Russian thief. Mohammed Gaparkhoev, a heroin addict and so-called asylum seeker who had arrived in the UK hidden in the back of a lorry, and who had been jailed for breaching an anti-social behaviour order to stop him shoplifting, had been ordered for deportation in 2004. Instead, the Home Office granted him exceptional leave to remain in the UK in February 2005.
Given the blasé attitude to immigration, it must, at first, have seemed all perfectly routine to Charles Clarke. But this time, he underestimated the looming collapse in the Labour vote in the local elections and the ruthlessness of Tony Blair in his quest to cling onto office.
Otherwise, he was determined to ride out the storm and would probably have succeeded in doing so.
All the Tories could do was witter about Labour failing to ‘consider’ the deportation of these criminals. They did not criticise Labour for actually failing to deport them. The Tories did not object to foreign murders, rapists etc being allowed to stay in Britain per se. Only that Labour should have actually ‘considered’ whether or not to deport such people.
This ineffectual wittering by the Tories presented Tony Blair with a perfect opportunity to outflank them. He announced in the House of Commons that the law would be changed so that all such criminals would be deported:
‘On any basis for years we have not been deporting all those people convicted of a serious criminal offence. I say now let us deport all of those people.’
And:
‘I think that it is now time that anybody who is convicted of an imprisonable offence and who is a foreign national is deported.’
This announcement was calculated to get the good headline, but like most of Mr Blair’s soundbites, it was no more than that. Shortly after, Charles Clarke made clear that there would be no automatic deportations and that it was his intention to have consultations about such a change in the law. Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, has also admitted that not all criminals could be deported and that there would be consultation:
‘What we need to do is consult fully in relation to that. We need to identify what are the circumstances in which there is a deportation.’
Needless to say, there are a whole host of so-called human rights activists and lawyers raising a whole host of supposed human rights issues as to why such criminals cannot be deported. Even if Labour decided to remove the criminals, it is expected that both the European Court of Human Rights and the EU will declare such a move illegal and a breach of human rights.
The estimate of the numbers of criminals believed to have been let loose is steadily increasing, now that Charles Clarke has gone and John Reid is Home Secretary. Mr Clarke originally estimated that there were 79 freed foreign criminals who were classified as being in the most dangerous category [which excluded armed robbery]. Mr Reid has revised that figure up to 179 and has indicated that the final figure could well run to several hundred.
At least 19 of these criminals have committed new sexual and violent offences since being released, and the total who have re-offended is 57. Only 7 have actually been deported since the crisis broke. The Home Office have already decided that 2 of the most serious offenders will not be deported. Mr Reid is currently unable to explain this decision.
It has now been revealed that those foreign criminals who have been rounded up by the police, are then being let loose again on bail by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal! Those granted bail include a rapist and a paedophile.
It would seem that the politically correct are determined to allow foreign criminals into this country come what may. Not for them the vulgarity of ‘majoritarian politics’.
Meanwhile, it has been revealed by Africans Unite Against Child Abuse [Afruca] that young African girls, some as young as 12, are being brought to the UK for prostitution and/or to be impregnated in order to qualify for council housing. Afruca stated in written evidence to a House of Commons home affairs select committee:
‘We have reports of cases involving Ugandan girls who have been trafficked purposely for council housing. They are brought in unaccompanied so they can go into local authority care, they are then impregnated to enable them to become eligible for council flats. The men then disappear and return once the housing problem is solved.
It is believed by concerned members of the community that a sizable proportion of the teenage pregnancy cases in London are as a result of this specific development in child trafficking.’
The fact is that the whole concept of mass immigration and so-called asylum seeking is shrouded in the culture of criminality. The British ruling class as a whole is prepared to tolerate that criminality rather than bring mass immigration to an end.
The problem is the dominance of politically correct ideology and the unwillingness to confront it. Many politicians would rather tolerate foreign criminals than risk being called racist.
The extent of the problem, the criminal culture of mass immigration, and the manner in which the so-called human rights industry nurtures that criminal culture was highlighted in the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 22 November 2005.
Nothing has changed and the problem is getting worse.
In reference to the IND, Mr Reid has stated:
‘Our system is not fit for purpose. It is inadequate in terms of its information technology, leadership, management, systems and processes.’
That might all be true, but Mr Reid is ignoring the issue of policy. He is proceeding on the basis that Labour’s commitment to mass immigration has nothing to do with the direct in inevitable problems of mass immigration. This particularly applies to the concept of so-called asylum seeking. This is a failure of ideology.
What is needed is a firm rejection of the concept of mass immigration. We need a new immigration policy which will bring mass immigration to an end. To be effective, such a policy must include the withdrawal from both the EU and the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, and a repeal of the so-called human rights legislation.
We further need an emigration policy to remove ALL illegal immigrants, and foreign criminals and political extremists
posted by erc @ 3:05 pm
<< Home