What an insult- more than £28 million was spent on offering legal advice to asylum seekers last year alone! The huge legal aid payout was used to pay for solicitors who gave consultation to more than 46,000 people who began the asylum claims process, at a massive cost of £600 per case.
However, this is likely to be a huge underestimate, according to Tory Immigration spokesman Damian Green, who uncovered the figure. This is because many of the cases include court appearances also, which costs the taxpayer three times the amount of just a consultation.
The government are terribly lax when it comes to taking care of asylum seekers who, by law, have no right to be here. What I mean is, an asylum seeker is only supposed to go to the next safest country, and reside there until safe to return, not cross a whole continent, and god knows how many countries to get to “push over” Britain.
The government really need to get their act together. They are taking too long to deal with asylum seekers. Currently we have 4,857 appeals being processed. Many of these cases go into Judicial review which is a further £2,500 lost because of our lax borders.
For years now Labour have been saying that they will get to grips with the issue, however, things just get worse. To give them credit, removal of failed asylum seekers did rise a little bit, however, I the later part of 2009, deportations were down 18 per cent. This should not be the case, especially when we have 285,000 asylum seekers living in the UK at your expense.
It was revealed that Britain was spending an obscene £1million a week on legal fees on behalf of foreigners who wish to gain permission to enter Britain.
The public are being left with the bill once again after the traitors in Westminster thought it would be a good idea that someone who wants to visit family but their visa is turned down, their appeal is automatically met by the taxpayer which amounts to £762 per case.
The National Front is the only political party which offers realistic solutions to the asylum seeker crisis. We must send all bogus asylum seekers back to their country of origin, and only accept asylum seekers from nearby. For instance if a crisis in France, Germany or any other country close by suffers a great atrocity which forces their citizens out of the country, we would accept them, for it would be wrong not to.
Showing posts with label asylum seekers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label asylum seekers. Show all posts
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION AND YOU
There is an endless list of why Britain should cut all ties with the European Parliament. If Britain doesn’t, then the British people will loose their sovereignty. The fact that the EU is doing everything in its power to force the sinister European Constitution onto the British public is a clear sign of the EU’s ambition of becoming a Superstate, in which they wish Britain to be a part of. We must resist this tyrannical, foreign body, otherwise we will become a mere state in the United States of Europe, and have no control over our nation.
The European Constitution will only have adverse effects for Britain. I have outlined a few of the issues that we would face under European rule.
1. The European Constitution would make it harder to fight crime.
The Constitutional Treaty would give the EU considerable power over crime, policing and our Law Courts. This sinister treaty would mean that that EU judges would gain power over justice and policing. Under the constitution, the European Court of Justice would become the highest court in the land and would also mean that a substantial amount of Britain’s laws would be created in Brussels; which is a huge transfer of our national sovereignty, as the government have admitted.
Under EU law, it would become illegal to try someone twice for the same crime. This would mean that criminals like Billy Dunlop would be walking the streets. In case you didn’t know; Billy Dunlop was successfully convicted of murdering Julie Hogg when new evidence came to light 15 years after he was acquitted.
The Constitutional Treaty also states that the severity of penalties should not be disproportionate to the criminal offence. This would undermine the discretion of British judges to keep infamous killers like Rosemary West in prison for life.
The treaty would allow the EU police force, Europol, to conduct investigations on British soil. This has worrying implications, because unlike the British police forces, Europol officers are largely unaccountable. They are completely immune to prosecution for acts performed in the course of their duties, and they are also not compelled to testify in court. Europol also has its own problems with fraud, for example, its offices were raided by Belgium police as part of a fraud investigation.
The European Prosecutor Eurojust, will also get sweeping new powers. A spokesman for Eurojust- Johannes Thuy- confirmed that “ we would compel the British police to make a prosecution.”
2. The European Constitution would give the EU power over our foreign policy and defence.
If the constitution does get accepted, it would mean that there will be an EU foreign Minister, an EU Diplomatic Service, and the constitution would give the right to the EU to sign treaties on our behalf.
The Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Zapatero, predicts that “ we will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single voice within NATO”. At first the British Government opposed many of these proposals, but being weak kneed it soon gave in.
The Constitutional Treaty also would set up a “structured cooperation” group, in which the UK will be forced to be apart of. The treaty states that members would have to achieve “ approved objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment and bring their defence apparatus into line with each other”. In a European Federalists research paper they noted that “Structured Co-operation in the field of defence is a significant step toward a Single European Army”.
German Chancellor Angela Merkal has also expressed a want for a single European Army: “ Within the EU itself, we will have to move closer to establishing a common European army”.
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has said “ When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don’t want to call it a European army, don’t call it a European army. You can call it “Margaret”, you can call it “Mary Anne”, you can call it any name”.
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero said that “ Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power! The constitution is an important step in this direction”.
What all this means in practice is that while our troops are being undermined in Afghanistan and Iraq with poor equipment and a want for just the basic equipment, the EU wants to divert billions of pounds to wasteful projects such as the Galileo satellite System- all because of its desire to play the role of world “Superpower”. Put aside the fact that our troops should not even be in Afghanistan or Iraq, the above is bad for our armed forces.
3. The Constitution would mean that we would have less control over Asylum Seekers and immigrants.
Under the Constitution Treaty, the European Court of Justice would gain a considerably amount of new powers to determine the “rights” of Asylum seekers and immigrants to reside in Britain. The Government have admitted that with the introduction of the Constitution Treaty would come more expensive Asylum and immigration appeals. In November 2006 Geoff Hoon said: “There is clearly a risk that adding what is in effect an avenue of appeal at a very early stage in the process might be an opportunity of further complicating of further complicating our existing asylum and immigration processes.”
The Charter of Fundamental Right, which is legally binding under the sinister constitution, would mean that Britain would not be able to deport terror suspects and other foreign criminals. This would mean, on top of all the other immigrants draining tax payers money away, we would have to pay for these criminals, and we would have to subsidize asylum seekers who are waiting for their case to be heard. It currently takes two years before the European Court of Justice even begins to hear an appeal.
Under the constitution there will be a new “burden sharing” requirement, which means that British taxpayers, who are already burdened with immigrants, will have to pay for immigrants in other countries.
Noone can disagree that under the Constitutional Treaty the European Court of Justice would end up making what is essentially political decisions. It wouldn’t matter if the entire British public disagreed with what the EU were doing, it would be impossible to overturn the rulings.
4. The Constitutional Treaty would mean the EU had more control over our public services.
HEALTH AND EDUCATION
The Constitutional treaty means that the EU would have complete control over the British Health service, and the British people would have no right to reject legislation in this area. This would mean that the EU would regulate medical standards. A new “right to preventive healthcare2 would open the NHS up to influx of costly ambulance-chasing lawsuits. The constitution would end the right to reject legislation concerning trade agreements in public services like health and education. In other words, our Parliament would no longer have a say over deals which will determine how these services are managed.
TRANSPORT: Under the constitution, the British people would loss the right to reject legislation concerning transport. Jacques Barrot, EU Transport Commissioner, recently revealed that the EU wants to run EU wide road pricing operations, but as the AA point out, this would lead to a huge loss of privacy.
The above is only a few of the issues that Britain face if the UK accepts the wretched Constitutional Treaty, and in doing so accept the tyrannical rule of the European Union. Below I have outlined some of the policies of the National front which relate to the above issues.
European Union.
The National Front supports the right of self-determination for all European nations and demands that right for Britain. It seeks a Europe where each nation is friendly to all others but where no nation seeks to dominate or interfere in the affairs of another. Consequently the NF would withdraw Britain from the European Union.
The NF would encourage the development of cultural and sporting links between other European nations. It would encourage the cultural diversity between the nations of Europe and resist attempts to eliminate this. It totally opposes the monetary and political merging of the separate nations into a super-state.
Defence
The protection of the British people at home and throughout the world is the responsibility of the government. It is for this purpose (and this purpose alone) that we require our armed forces, which have such a proud record in defending our nation. No British politician wants a war but it is a sad fact that Britain must always be prepared for a whole range of eventualities including the less likely ones. This is particularly true when the Middle East is in a period of change and uncertainty.
There is no realistic defence without a basic defence strategy. The National Front's defence strategy is that Britain must maintain a defence capability able to inflict massive damage on any other countries in the world should they act as an aggressor. The only other requirement is the ability of our forces to defeat any internal terrorist threat. The equipment with which our forces are armed must be designed and built in the UK and must remain solely under the control of this country.
The National Front totally opposes the use of British troops by the United Nations to carry out their political adventures. It also opposes any attempt to form a European army under foreign control and will withdraw Britain from NATO.
Race and immigration
The National Front believes that the world contains a rich diversity of races and consequent cultures. We believe in the preservation of these races. As each race has evolved it has developed its own social structures, its own customs and its own culture. These are different for each race and have been built up to suit the character of each separate race.
In the case of Britain the National Front upholds the wish of the majority of British people for Britain to remain a white country, with customs and a culture which have been developed to suit our character. Consequently the National Front would halt all non-white immigration into Britain and introduce a policy of phased and humane repatriation of all coloured people currently resident here. Such a policy would be expected to extend over 10-15 years and its completion would thus depend on the recurrent election of successive NF governments.
The National Front believes that this is the only way to halt the steadily rising racial tension and violence that is becoming part of everyday life in modern Britain.
In regards to white immigration, this would only be allowed where there are particular reasons such as the possession of particular skills or in the case of political refugees. Until the problem of unemployment is solved, the NF would seek to keep such immigration to a minimum
NHS
The National Front would provide an entirely free National Health Service and this would include the abolition of prescription charges. When people fall ill they are likely to be losing money in any case and we can see no justification in prescription charges. However, checks on doctors' prescriptions would be made to make sure the Health Service is not wasting money.
Whilst the NF expects all parts of the NHS to use money efficiently and carefully, a National Front government would make available sufficient funds to eliminate all waiting lists for medically needed operations and treatments. This will take priority over other items of expenditure.
The National Front believes that the NHS should be made available to all foreign visitors who fall ill during their stay, however this system is being abused by people who arrive in this country fully aware of an existing health condition - this would be stopped. The NF is opposed to abortion on principle and would only sanction one where a mother has conceived as a result of rape, where medical opinion asserts that there is a genuine and serious danger to the health or life of the mother if the pregnancy is allowed to continue, or where medical opinion asserts that the foetus is seriously damaged or malformed. All such abortions are dependent on the mother's consent. Under a National Front government the days of abortion being used as a form of post-coital contraception will end.
FREEDOM
For the last thousand years the British people have fought, and sometimes died, to preserve our basic freedoms. The National Front wholeheartedly believes that these freedoms must be maintained. Consequently the National Front believes in the introduction of a bill of rights to guarantee basic freedoms including:
Equal and free access to justice
Freedom of speech and publication and distribution of printed matter
Freedom of access to publicly owned assembly facilities
Freedom for orderly demonstrations in public
The right to vote and stand for election for public office without onerous financial or other qualifications
Freedom from arbitrary arrest
Those are a few of our policies which I think are relevant here.
Moving on.
WHAT WILL THE SWINDON NF DO TO HELP STOP THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION BEING ACCEPTED IN BRITAIN.
The National Front, up and down the country, will continue to campaign against EU dictatorship in Britain. However on a local level I have started a campaign. Its an attempt to make central Government stick to their promise and give the British people a referendum. And everyone of you can help. In actual fact, I need everyone of you to help. Whether you live in Swindon or not, it doesn’t matter. As long as you have a voice than you can help.
Basically, I have found a way in which to bring about a referendum in a Parish council which poses the question: “ should there be a national referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU?” More Councils- district councils, parish councils ect- that hold a referendum and with more “yes” votes, the more likely that Brown will hold a referendum.
I will give anyone who is willing to try and make a difference all the guidance and advice they will need- everything from lists of legislation that gives them the right to hold a referendum, to how you can insure you will get a good turn out.
If you are interested please email me at Swindon@yahoo.co.uk, and we will win this fight together.
BRITAIN FIRST- VOTE NATIONAL FRONT
The European Constitution will only have adverse effects for Britain. I have outlined a few of the issues that we would face under European rule.
1. The European Constitution would make it harder to fight crime.
The Constitutional Treaty would give the EU considerable power over crime, policing and our Law Courts. This sinister treaty would mean that that EU judges would gain power over justice and policing. Under the constitution, the European Court of Justice would become the highest court in the land and would also mean that a substantial amount of Britain’s laws would be created in Brussels; which is a huge transfer of our national sovereignty, as the government have admitted.
Under EU law, it would become illegal to try someone twice for the same crime. This would mean that criminals like Billy Dunlop would be walking the streets. In case you didn’t know; Billy Dunlop was successfully convicted of murdering Julie Hogg when new evidence came to light 15 years after he was acquitted.
The Constitutional Treaty also states that the severity of penalties should not be disproportionate to the criminal offence. This would undermine the discretion of British judges to keep infamous killers like Rosemary West in prison for life.
The treaty would allow the EU police force, Europol, to conduct investigations on British soil. This has worrying implications, because unlike the British police forces, Europol officers are largely unaccountable. They are completely immune to prosecution for acts performed in the course of their duties, and they are also not compelled to testify in court. Europol also has its own problems with fraud, for example, its offices were raided by Belgium police as part of a fraud investigation.
The European Prosecutor Eurojust, will also get sweeping new powers. A spokesman for Eurojust- Johannes Thuy- confirmed that “ we would compel the British police to make a prosecution.”
2. The European Constitution would give the EU power over our foreign policy and defence.
If the constitution does get accepted, it would mean that there will be an EU foreign Minister, an EU Diplomatic Service, and the constitution would give the right to the EU to sign treaties on our behalf.
The Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Zapatero, predicts that “ we will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single voice within NATO”. At first the British Government opposed many of these proposals, but being weak kneed it soon gave in.
The Constitutional Treaty also would set up a “structured cooperation” group, in which the UK will be forced to be apart of. The treaty states that members would have to achieve “ approved objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment and bring their defence apparatus into line with each other”. In a European Federalists research paper they noted that “Structured Co-operation in the field of defence is a significant step toward a Single European Army”.
German Chancellor Angela Merkal has also expressed a want for a single European Army: “ Within the EU itself, we will have to move closer to establishing a common European army”.
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has said “ When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don’t want to call it a European army, don’t call it a European army. You can call it “Margaret”, you can call it “Mary Anne”, you can call it any name”.
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero said that “ Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power! The constitution is an important step in this direction”.
What all this means in practice is that while our troops are being undermined in Afghanistan and Iraq with poor equipment and a want for just the basic equipment, the EU wants to divert billions of pounds to wasteful projects such as the Galileo satellite System- all because of its desire to play the role of world “Superpower”. Put aside the fact that our troops should not even be in Afghanistan or Iraq, the above is bad for our armed forces.
3. The Constitution would mean that we would have less control over Asylum Seekers and immigrants.
Under the Constitution Treaty, the European Court of Justice would gain a considerably amount of new powers to determine the “rights” of Asylum seekers and immigrants to reside in Britain. The Government have admitted that with the introduction of the Constitution Treaty would come more expensive Asylum and immigration appeals. In November 2006 Geoff Hoon said: “There is clearly a risk that adding what is in effect an avenue of appeal at a very early stage in the process might be an opportunity of further complicating of further complicating our existing asylum and immigration processes.”
The Charter of Fundamental Right, which is legally binding under the sinister constitution, would mean that Britain would not be able to deport terror suspects and other foreign criminals. This would mean, on top of all the other immigrants draining tax payers money away, we would have to pay for these criminals, and we would have to subsidize asylum seekers who are waiting for their case to be heard. It currently takes two years before the European Court of Justice even begins to hear an appeal.
Under the constitution there will be a new “burden sharing” requirement, which means that British taxpayers, who are already burdened with immigrants, will have to pay for immigrants in other countries.
Noone can disagree that under the Constitutional Treaty the European Court of Justice would end up making what is essentially political decisions. It wouldn’t matter if the entire British public disagreed with what the EU were doing, it would be impossible to overturn the rulings.
4. The Constitutional Treaty would mean the EU had more control over our public services.
HEALTH AND EDUCATION
The Constitutional treaty means that the EU would have complete control over the British Health service, and the British people would have no right to reject legislation in this area. This would mean that the EU would regulate medical standards. A new “right to preventive healthcare2 would open the NHS up to influx of costly ambulance-chasing lawsuits. The constitution would end the right to reject legislation concerning trade agreements in public services like health and education. In other words, our Parliament would no longer have a say over deals which will determine how these services are managed.TRANSPORT: Under the constitution, the British people would loss the right to reject legislation concerning transport. Jacques Barrot, EU Transport Commissioner, recently revealed that the EU wants to run EU wide road pricing operations, but as the AA point out, this would lead to a huge loss of privacy.
The above is only a few of the issues that Britain face if the UK accepts the wretched Constitutional Treaty, and in doing so accept the tyrannical rule of the European Union. Below I have outlined some of the policies of the National front which relate to the above issues.
European Union.
The National Front supports the right of self-determination for all European nations and demands that right for Britain. It seeks a Europe where each nation is friendly to all others but where no nation seeks to dominate or interfere in the affairs of another. Consequently the NF would withdraw Britain from the European Union.
The NF would encourage the development of cultural and sporting links between other European nations. It would encourage the cultural diversity between the nations of Europe and resist attempts to eliminate this. It totally opposes the monetary and political merging of the separate nations into a super-state.
Defence
The protection of the British people at home and throughout the world is the responsibility of the government. It is for this purpose (and this purpose alone) that we require our armed forces, which have such a proud record in defending our nation. No British politician wants a war but it is a sad fact that Britain must always be prepared for a whole range of eventualities including the less likely ones. This is particularly true when the Middle East is in a period of change and uncertainty.
There is no realistic defence without a basic defence strategy. The National Front's defence strategy is that Britain must maintain a defence capability able to inflict massive damage on any other countries in the world should they act as an aggressor. The only other requirement is the ability of our forces to defeat any internal terrorist threat. The equipment with which our forces are armed must be designed and built in the UK and must remain solely under the control of this country.
The National Front totally opposes the use of British troops by the United Nations to carry out their political adventures. It also opposes any attempt to form a European army under foreign control and will withdraw Britain from NATO.
Race and immigration
The National Front believes that the world contains a rich diversity of races and consequent cultures. We believe in the preservation of these races. As each race has evolved it has developed its own social structures, its own customs and its own culture. These are different for each race and have been built up to suit the character of each separate race.
In the case of Britain the National Front upholds the wish of the majority of British people for Britain to remain a white country, with customs and a culture which have been developed to suit our character. Consequently the National Front would halt all non-white immigration into Britain and introduce a policy of phased and humane repatriation of all coloured people currently resident here. Such a policy would be expected to extend over 10-15 years and its completion would thus depend on the recurrent election of successive NF governments.
The National Front believes that this is the only way to halt the steadily rising racial tension and violence that is becoming part of everyday life in modern Britain.
In regards to white immigration, this would only be allowed where there are particular reasons such as the possession of particular skills or in the case of political refugees. Until the problem of unemployment is solved, the NF would seek to keep such immigration to a minimum
NHS
The National Front would provide an entirely free National Health Service and this would include the abolition of prescription charges. When people fall ill they are likely to be losing money in any case and we can see no justification in prescription charges. However, checks on doctors' prescriptions would be made to make sure the Health Service is not wasting money.
Whilst the NF expects all parts of the NHS to use money efficiently and carefully, a National Front government would make available sufficient funds to eliminate all waiting lists for medically needed operations and treatments. This will take priority over other items of expenditure.
The National Front believes that the NHS should be made available to all foreign visitors who fall ill during their stay, however this system is being abused by people who arrive in this country fully aware of an existing health condition - this would be stopped. The NF is opposed to abortion on principle and would only sanction one where a mother has conceived as a result of rape, where medical opinion asserts that there is a genuine and serious danger to the health or life of the mother if the pregnancy is allowed to continue, or where medical opinion asserts that the foetus is seriously damaged or malformed. All such abortions are dependent on the mother's consent. Under a National Front government the days of abortion being used as a form of post-coital contraception will end.
FREEDOM
For the last thousand years the British people have fought, and sometimes died, to preserve our basic freedoms. The National Front wholeheartedly believes that these freedoms must be maintained. Consequently the National Front believes in the introduction of a bill of rights to guarantee basic freedoms including:
Equal and free access to justice
Freedom of speech and publication and distribution of printed matter
Freedom of access to publicly owned assembly facilities
Freedom for orderly demonstrations in public
The right to vote and stand for election for public office without onerous financial or other qualifications
Freedom from arbitrary arrest
Those are a few of our policies which I think are relevant here.
Moving on.
WHAT WILL THE SWINDON NF DO TO HELP STOP THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION BEING ACCEPTED IN BRITAIN.
The National Front, up and down the country, will continue to campaign against EU dictatorship in Britain. However on a local level I have started a campaign. Its an attempt to make central Government stick to their promise and give the British people a referendum. And everyone of you can help. In actual fact, I need everyone of you to help. Whether you live in Swindon or not, it doesn’t matter. As long as you have a voice than you can help.
Basically, I have found a way in which to bring about a referendum in a Parish council which poses the question: “ should there be a national referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU?” More Councils- district councils, parish councils ect- that hold a referendum and with more “yes” votes, the more likely that Brown will hold a referendum.
I will give anyone who is willing to try and make a difference all the guidance and advice they will need- everything from lists of legislation that gives them the right to hold a referendum, to how you can insure you will get a good turn out.
If you are interested please email me at Swindon@yahoo.co.uk, and we will win this fight together.
BRITAIN FIRST- VOTE NATIONAL FRONT
Saturday, 9 May 2009
SWINDON NATIONAL FRONT INVESTIGATES PART 1: ASYLUM SEEKERS AND THE HARBOUR
I wanted to know what services were available to asylum seekers and refugees in Swindon. So I went to interview a certain Mr Gerd Muller from the Harbour Project, in Broad Street.
The Harbour Project is a charity that provides services to asylum seekers and refugees. And the information I found was not really that shocking, not for me anyway- however, for the average Joe, who are only fed what the media and mainstream politicians want them to be fed, it may be a bit of an eye opener in various ways.
On the 7th of May, I went to the Harbour, and met Mr Muller. We sat in his Office, and as he was totally oblivious of who I am, and in actual fact didn’t have a clue that I am NF, starts off into a rant about how Asylum seekers have sub-standard housing and how they should be given more rights. And, as tempted as I was, I resisted arguing that in fact, asylum seekers have no right to be here, and in fact, if they were asylum seekers they would of resided in the next safe country, not crossing entire continents and 17+ safe countries to get to the “push over” known as Britain. But I had to keep my mouth shut and give him the impression that I was in agreement, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to get information out of him, and he would likely tell me to leave.
Anyway, after I told him that I had a place to be, and that I really needed to start the interview, he started giving me the goods.
The Harbour is a charity that is almost completely funded by the Swindon Borough Council (I am in the process of finding the exact amount from the council.) which in turn means that you, the tax payer, are funding the services that Harbour provides. So, you may be glad to hear that you, the taxpayer are paying your council tax so that the poor old “bogus” asylum seeker could use the Internet, make international phone calls, get free clothes and furniture, food parcels, and food bank vouchers, in which they can go to the Food bank in Swindon and collect a whole weeks worth of food, on top of this, the local authority provide these people, who have never paid a day of tax in their lives, with accommodation, fully paid by the council, benefits of £30 pound a week, and free educational classes in English.
Then, when the asylum seekers’ claim for asylum gets approved by the Home Office, they are then classed as refugees, which, in simple terms mean that they are citizens just without a British passport. They are then entitled to the same benefits as you, can get accommodation, and get free health care, all this while still receiving services from the Harbour, like free internet access, international calls, food parcels, food bank vouchers, clothing, furniture, ect… And while these people live on the body of our nation like leaches, British pensioners are left to rot in care homes, on state pensions that just cover the basics. Why is it fair that pensioners get less then unwanted guests that do not belong here, and have only come here to exploit the generous benefit system?
It may not be surprising to hear that since 2002, the amount of visitors to the Harbour has risen by almost 5,000 per annum. As the graph (below), which was given to me by Mr Muller, shows that in 2002/2003 the amount of visitors at the Harbour is just under 1,000, and in 2008/2009 the amount of visitors in that year was almost 6,000. As those familiar with Swindon will know, Broad Street, and the surrounding area is pretty much a non-white area, and as you will have also of noticed, what once was a relatively clean area, is now a complete dump, with rubbish dumped in every back allow. So they not only are taking taxpayers money, they are turning our streets in to their own personal dustbins.
If these so called asylum seekers were in deed, at risk in their country of origin, then they would go to the nearest safe nation. Under a National Front government, asylum seekers would cease to be brought to Britain, and future refugee assistance would take place in the country of origin of the natural disaster, famine or conflict or the nearest country that will provide a safe haven until the problems in their country of origin has been resolved. All the money that is put into the Harbour could be better spent, like on the failing educational system, or in helping the pensioners of Swindon stay warm during winter, or insuring that white, British families keep a roof over their heads. Stop wasting Tax payers’ money, VOTE NF
The Harbour Project is a charity that provides services to asylum seekers and refugees. And the information I found was not really that shocking, not for me anyway- however, for the average Joe, who are only fed what the media and mainstream politicians want them to be fed, it may be a bit of an eye opener in various ways.
On the 7th of May, I went to the Harbour, and met Mr Muller. We sat in his Office, and as he was totally oblivious of who I am, and in actual fact didn’t have a clue that I am NF, starts off into a rant about how Asylum seekers have sub-standard housing and how they should be given more rights. And, as tempted as I was, I resisted arguing that in fact, asylum seekers have no right to be here, and in fact, if they were asylum seekers they would of resided in the next safe country, not crossing entire continents and 17+ safe countries to get to the “push over” known as Britain. But I had to keep my mouth shut and give him the impression that I was in agreement, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to get information out of him, and he would likely tell me to leave.
Anyway, after I told him that I had a place to be, and that I really needed to start the interview, he started giving me the goods.
The Harbour is a charity that is almost completely funded by the Swindon Borough Council (I am in the process of finding the exact amount from the council.) which in turn means that you, the tax payer, are funding the services that Harbour provides. So, you may be glad to hear that you, the taxpayer are paying your council tax so that the poor old “bogus” asylum seeker could use the Internet, make international phone calls, get free clothes and furniture, food parcels, and food bank vouchers, in which they can go to the Food bank in Swindon and collect a whole weeks worth of food, on top of this, the local authority provide these people, who have never paid a day of tax in their lives, with accommodation, fully paid by the council, benefits of £30 pound a week, and free educational classes in English.
Then, when the asylum seekers’ claim for asylum gets approved by the Home Office, they are then classed as refugees, which, in simple terms mean that they are citizens just without a British passport. They are then entitled to the same benefits as you, can get accommodation, and get free health care, all this while still receiving services from the Harbour, like free internet access, international calls, food parcels, food bank vouchers, clothing, furniture, ect… And while these people live on the body of our nation like leaches, British pensioners are left to rot in care homes, on state pensions that just cover the basics. Why is it fair that pensioners get less then unwanted guests that do not belong here, and have only come here to exploit the generous benefit system?
It may not be surprising to hear that since 2002, the amount of visitors to the Harbour has risen by almost 5,000 per annum. As the graph (below), which was given to me by Mr Muller, shows that in 2002/2003 the amount of visitors at the Harbour is just under 1,000, and in 2008/2009 the amount of visitors in that year was almost 6,000. As those familiar with Swindon will know, Broad Street, and the surrounding area is pretty much a non-white area, and as you will have also of noticed, what once was a relatively clean area, is now a complete dump, with rubbish dumped in every back allow. So they not only are taking taxpayers money, they are turning our streets in to their own personal dustbins.
If these so called asylum seekers were in deed, at risk in their country of origin, then they would go to the nearest safe nation. Under a National Front government, asylum seekers would cease to be brought to Britain, and future refugee assistance would take place in the country of origin of the natural disaster, famine or conflict or the nearest country that will provide a safe haven until the problems in their country of origin has been resolved. All the money that is put into the Harbour could be better spent, like on the failing educational system, or in helping the pensioners of Swindon stay warm during winter, or insuring that white, British families keep a roof over their heads. Stop wasting Tax payers’ money, VOTE NF
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Migrants and French Authorities make a mockery of immigration controls
A startling flaw in France’s deportation system has emerged, which is completely making a mockery of immigration controls. Farcical police procedures are allowing migrants unlimited opportunities to cross the channel and enter Britain, despite the supposed crackdown announced last week.
These migrants have been called boomerang migrants because no matter how many times the authorities turn them away, they come back in a few hours and give entering Britain another chance.
Those few migrants who are actually given deportation orders, are driven to the French and Belgium border and left there, completely free to travel back to Calais and give entering Britain another stab by hiding in lorries or jumping trains.
The French Immigration Minister promised to smash up shanty towns, and to improve security at the Calais port; he also promised to toughen sentences for people traffickers. However, no matter how good this may sound, these measures completely ignore the difficult task of keeping these boomerang migrants from entering Britain.
A quote by Amir Khan, an 18 year old Afghan from Jalalabad, speaks volumes… “ We keep trying to get to Britain and every time we fail we come back again. I have relatives in Birmingham and my greatest wish is to go there and work. I have made a difficult journey from my homeland and nothing will turn me back on the last leg. Calais is a tricky border, but it is not impossible. When we are picked up we are simply given a warning. They might drive us across the border to Belgium but that doesn’t bother us. We hitch hike back to Calais or jump public transport. The conductor doesn’t bother us for fair, because he knows we can’t pay. The French just seem to going through the motions. They want us to get to Britain as much as we do. “
Last Tuesday, about 200 alleged people smugglers were picked up, but, it was a once off and is nothing but an attempt by the French authorities to assert control, which they are failing miserably to do.
Khan said...” The French launched a publicity stunt aimed at showing they’re still in control of Calais, but they are not. The people smugglers can pretty much do what they want and the number of migrants is growing by the day. We can be told to go away forever and placed across the border, but we’ll always come back. I’ll be heading for Calais in a few days.”
Ali Mohammed, 17, also an Afghan, has said he paid almost £1,000 to a people trafficker for a “guaranteed” passage to England. “I have been arrested a few times but I am always let off; they might send me to Belgium for a few hours but I will always be back. They took my name so I am on the system, however, I had made it clear I don’t want to claim asylum here.”
Jamel, 17, said... “Lack of papers was our greatest asset. We have no status as citizens, which means no one is able to deal with us when we are picked up, they keep stopping us, but in the end, they want us to get to Britain. The British welcomes us when we arrive. They make life very easy. It is the ambition of us all to get there as soon as possible. In France it takes 6 months for asylum seekers to get benefits however in Britain you get it straight away.”
All this amounts to a government sanctioned invasion. It should be obvious to everyone that these people are not coming here for asylum reasons, but because we offer the best benefits. If they truly wanted to get away from their homeland a seek asylum, they wouldn’t travel across an entire continent, they would settle with the closest country in which they could live in peace.
We need to toughen up, and stop giving benefits to migrants who have no right to them. We should work together with the French authorities to come up with a plane to keep migrants from coming into the UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
