Why is this an asylum seeker?

An Algerian asylum seeker who committed a string of violent offences culminating in an assault on his own teenage daughter has lost his 15-year human rights battle to stay in the UK.

This week three appeal judges finally ruled that his criminal offending, which included a sexual assault on a woman and an assault on a police officer, was so serious that he must be deported to Algeria.

The man from West London, who can only be identified as OH, committed 13 offences over a 30 year period, his first in 1988 just weeks after illegally entering the UK.

He was thrown out of the UK in 1991 but managed to breach border security and sneak back, marrying a British woman in 2000.

Can’t see asylum there. Illegal immigration, yes, Then legal immigration – or legal status to stay through marriage at least.

By asylum is a specific legal status. Why use that word to describe him?

25 thoughts on “Why is this an asylum seeker?”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    If one of our own citizens faces a death penalty charge we don’t deport, is it the same with foreigners being sent back to their own country? If it is I suppose that’s asylum.

  2. “He was thrown out of the UK in 1991 but managed to breach border security and sneak back…”

    I doubt he did that. I suspect he simply caught a flight and strolled in past the useless UKBF…

  3. Doubtless Algeria has oppressive laws banning assualt, so he applied for the right to practise his beliefs here.

  4. They use that word to describe him because it is part of the MSM cabal’s blatant effort to confuse the British public between asylum seekers, refugees, economic migrants and out and out criminal chancers.

    I’m all in favour of legal economic migration (hell, my daughter is married to one and we helped sponsor him in) and I’ve no problem with people in genuine fear of their lives in their own countries* (our lords and masters disdain for the plight of Asia Bibi was appalling) whether from their government or from the random nutters that make up everybody’s general populations.

    However, much of what we are currently getting are low-skill or no-skill economic migrants and various flavours (excluding the breach of immigration law) of criminal. As, also, the Swedes are finding out to their very loud daily cost. We have enough native British thugs and budding criminal masterminds, we don’t need everybody else’s.

    * It’s Sunday morning and I can’t quite be bothered looking up the technical difference between refugee and asylum seeker – I presume the later is after presentation and claim, the former a more generic term. But, really, I don’t care.

  5. As, also, the Swedes are finding out to their very loud daily cost.

    Now that’s something I’ve noticed. I meet a lot of Swedes. We’re a popular resort for Scandinavians. They used to be a very right-on liberal people. I remember being strongly criticised a few years back for pointing out the looting of London shops we were watching on a bar TV was being mainly done by those of the tinted complexion. Now every second one you talk to comes over like a member of the KKK on the subject of Sweden’s immigrants. And it’s not me who’s raising the subject. And it’s not the older generation, either. Some of the most vociferous are barely out of their 20s. And it’s not as if were getting a broad spectrum of Swede. We’re preselecting for those who can afford foreign holidays. Heaven knows what the feelings are in the poorer sections of Swedish towns who’ll be getting the most immigrants. This isn’t going to end well.

  6. He’ll be an asylum seeker because one of the ways he has strung this out for 13 years would be to say he’d be persecuted if sent back home. Probably claims he’s gay (despite wife and daughter).

  7. I guess he’s an asylum seeker because he has sought asylum. Theoretically a French person could arrive from France and claim asylum. Actually, there would be a fairly good deal of sense to that. But I digress.

    Were asylum granted, he would be transmutated from asylum seeker to refugee, that legally recognised status of coming from a place from which you have a right to protection.

    Refugee status would be a pretty long shot for an Algerian, seeing as there aren’t currently gangs of murderous government thugs roaming the city streets killing people at random or systematically persecuting them for, say, having blue eyes. But there are a number of other benefits to just applying – the much larger chance of getting some kind of leave to remain. And being able to remain for the years the process takes (which also increases the chances you can stay forever).

  8. Back in 2001 when I was due to fly out to Munich for 3 months through the Eurasmus scheme for students I had a placement lined up but nowhere arranged to live.

    Then I had a brainwave. Tony Blair has just won his second election so, as a Tory, I would land in Munich and request political asylum. I was going to gamble that the German authorities would house me and take 3 months processing me, allowing me to work out my placement before being deported back home.

    Foolproof, until a friend pointed out that I couldn’t fly from one left leaning social democracy to another and claim asylum.

  9. M’lud will correct me, but in most jurisdictions the process goes:
    Trial, conviction, sentence
    Appeal, on conviction or sentence, based on fact or law
    Appeal to high court based on point of law only
    Appeal to higher court only allowed if law needs clarifying / precedent to be set.

    So what point of law was in play here? even so, why did it take 13 years?

  10. Apparently there’s so many bombs going off that its become normalised and the State broadcaster doesn’t even bother reporting it.

    Does that have cause and effect the right way round? Could it not be a case of the State broadcaster deliberately not reporting it so that it becomes normalised?

  11. “I can’t quite be bothered looking up the technical difference between refugee and asylum seeker”

    Semantically, a refugee is somebody seeking refuge – a temporary place of safety to occupy until it is safe to move one. A pedestrian refuge in the middle of a road, a battered woman’s refuge, a fire refuge. The local church hall when your house has been flooded. It is not a permanant residence. I was an economic refugee in Hong Kong for three years until the UK economy and my savings made it suitable for me to return.

    Semantically, an asylum seeker is somebody seeking asylum – a permanent abandonment of their source location because something has made it impossible to remain there.

    Politically, they’ve been deliberately confused, and people even state “asylum seeker successfully granted refugee status”. yerwot??? I’m *fleeing* my country, and tell me I’m here until I go back??? NOOO!!! I’m seeking ASYLUM, not refuge! Semantically, there’s no such thing as “climate change refugees”, they would be climate change asylum seekers. If you’re fleeing your country because it’s now underwater, there’s no way you can go back.

    Though as occupants of mental asylums have been sent back to their source communities, it’s fully expected for the social worker class deliberately destroy the language.

  12. “committed 13 offences over a 30 year period”: I suspect they mean “convicted of 13 offences over a 30 year period”.

    Since it’s Algeria he’ll be going back to shouldn’t we make him row a galley back? Just for old times sake?

  13. ‘Why use that word to describe him?’

    So they can keep him. He is to replace you. They don’t care much who they replace you with. An Algerian criminal is preferable to you. They know they can’t get you to vote for them.

    In British democracy, if the people don’t vote the way you want, replace the people.

    Any time the Left uses the word “democracy,” you know they are lying.

  14. The Canadians pulled asylum status from a few people of the grounds they had gone back home to visit family, attend weddings etc. so clearly it was safe for them to return.
    Of course the left and media made a massive fuss, completely ignoring the point that why should we feel sympathy with these people if they weren’t really asylum seekers and had lied in the first place. No doubt it will be the same with the Vietnamese parents of the loony death woman, media will play the poor them card and ignore reality

  15. philip, that’s basically correct for the ordinary civil and criminal courts, save that with the exception of appeal from the magistrates to the Crown Court, there is no automatic right of appeal. Instead, you apply for permission to appeal.

    How it works or, apparently, does not work, in the Immigration Tribunal, I haven’t a scooby.

    13 years is indeed unacceptable and I am hotly curious to know how it occurred (if it did: most court reporting is risible). We’re a long way past the days of Jarndyce v Jarndyce.

  16. By asylum is a specific legal status. Why use that word to describe him?

    @Tim W

    You missed the news

    Newspeak: May signed UK into UN “Global Compact on Migration” – term “illegal” now verboten

    btw Trump didn’t sign

  17. @Surreptitious Evil October 27, 2019 at 9:51 am
    @bloke in spain October 27, 2019 at 10:19 a m

    low-skill or no-skill economic migrants and various flavours (excluding the breach of immigration law) of criminal. As, also, the Swedes are finding out to their very loud daily cost

    Indeed
    Bomb attacks are now a normal part of Swedish life
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/bomb-attacks-are-now-a-normal-part-of-swedish-life/

    .
    @BniC October 27, 2019 at 4:51 pm

    +1

    The 39 were criminals who paid other criminals to smuggle them into UK – they were not trafficked nor are they victims or refugees.

    The hyped up daughter had been working in Japan before her Darwin award; another had been working as a waiter in Paris

  18. “So what point of law was in play here? even so, why did it take 13 years?”

    Lawyers have nice houses, posh cars and expensive wives to pay for……..

  19. Looks like the Purfleet locals have been complaining , photographing and videoing the carnival of migrant transport in the expectation that Border Force / Home Office / local plod would do something…. for several years…..

    I rather suspect that folk in other minor ports and points of entry have been doing similar.

    What is obvious is that the state broadcaster is staying (on the web site at least) totally schtum about it and no doubt the Hillsborough tactical manual is being dusted off and circulated.

  20. The only penalty for serious crime commited by an immigrant should be hanging. When you assault your hosts, you have no excuse and no value.

  21. Now every second one you talk to comes over like a member of the KKK on the subject of Sweden’s immigrants. And it’s not me who’s raising the subject. And it’s not the older generation, either.

    Wouldn’t it be good if people could think ahead and anticipate problems, instead of (as in Germany) reacting only when it is too late to do anything about it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *