'Air rage' lets asylum seekers stay in UK

[Aptrgangr]

'Air rage' lets asylum seekers stay in UK

BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR

HUNDREDS of failed asylum seekers have been allowed to stay in Britain because they were so rowdy that airlines refused to take them back to their own countries.
Ministers have admitted they have had to abort attempts to deport more than a thousand asylum seekers in the last two years because they became so aggressive they posed a safety threat to fellow passengers.

They had to be returned to detention in the UK and in some cases could only be successfully removed from the country when accompanied by in-flight escorts, costing the taxpayer thousands of pounds a time.

The scale of Britain's problem with "air-rage" asylum seekers emerged last night, as immigration experts revealed would-be deportees regularly scream and lash out, attack cabin crew and even strip naked on planes in a desperate bid to delay the end of their dreams of staying in the UK.

Home Office ministers have put pressure on airlines, and even drawn up plans to charter their own high-security deportation flights in recent years, to prevent anyone getting in the way of government targets to deport more asylum seekers than are allowed into the country every month.

But Home Secretary John Reid has now admitted the rate of aborted removals has reached an all-time high, with more than 10 failed asylum seekers every week dodging deportation.

Reid said: "During the past two years there have been 1,173 occasions when attempts to remove detained people have failed due to disruptive behaviour on their part. If a detainee cannot be removed due to their disruptive behaviour they are returned to detention and arrangements are made to remove them as soon as possible with in-flight escorts."

Shadow home secretary David Davis said: "This is yet another example of Labour's failure to get a grip on our failing asylum system."

Scotland on Sunday understands that immigration officials or private contractors are regularly ordered to accompany failed asylum seekers back to their country of origin, using restraints where necessary. The accompanied escort operations are believed to cost a minimum of £1,000 a time, and anything up to £10,000.

Three years ago, the Home Office spent £75,000 to hire a jet to deport a single failed asylum seeker to Algeria, after he was banned by airlines.

Scotland on Sunday - UK - \'Air rage\' lets asylum seekers stay in UK

Bracelets and tranquilizers would solve this problem...I am sure they are not deported because it is not possible, but because authorities do not want.

[Gladstone]

Bracelets and tranquilizers would solve this problem...I am sure they are not deported because it is not possible, but because authorities do not want.

Yes, exactly. The whole modern 'asylum seeker' thing, 95 percent plus bogus generally, is a flimsy fig leaf to cover for the 'importation' of people as cheap labor. Without that cover, this modern re-invigorated Trans-Atlantic slave trade known as 'uncontrolled mass immigration', incredibly profitable for a few but terribly destructive to most and the primary motivation for the ideology of multi-culturalism, would be a lot more naked than it already is. That the elites of the all too many countries that this takes place in refer to the native peoples of Europe as 'non-migrant stock', and to those imported in as 'migrant stock', both animal terms, says everything one needs to know about their humanitarianism.

[Menydh]

And the voice spreads causing call effects. We are the laughing stock of the entire world.

[Susi]

If one doesn't know how to behave, one should, as they say on the internets, gfto.

Seriously, though. They should just use a military plane or something to get them out. It's ridiculous on both sides. The government obviously doesn't want to bother with this problem, and the asylum seekers are so immature that they don't even know how to behave properly when on an aeroplane/in a public place/etc.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Susi

They should just use a military plane or something to get them out. It's ridiculous on both sides. The government obviously doesn't want to bother with this problem, and the asylum seekers are so immature that they don't even know how to behave properly when on an aeroplane/in a public place/etc.

Unfortunately the legal system in Europe, in conjunction with UN conventions and human rights organizations is a perverted cocktail that introduces a mechanism of self-destruction to our societies.

You can put them in an army transport plane. But you still need them to keep quiet to ensure the safety of the flight. Your alternatives are reduced to handcuff them or give them a drug to keep them dozed.

Now, to put handcuffs to their wrists is not enough. You must put them both in the wrists and ankles, and anchor them together to the floor of the plane. If you choose to give them a drug, you are certain that they are not going to accept it out of free will. So you are left with the options of injecting them the drug by force, or trick them by hiding it in a beverage or food.

Human rights organizations know well that there are enough legal vacuums to go against such practices and to report them as violations of the Human Rights. And no country wants to see one report after another of violation of Human Rights before the UN.

I don't know the legal tricks here, but I can easily imagine some. For example, in the first case, if an accident happened the handcuffs would be considered an element that prevents them from being able to save their lives. Never mind that on a plane accident your chances to save your life are few or next to none, whether you are handcuffed or not. In fact, if the plane happened to crash you can be sure that the international organized outcry against the country for having them handcuffed would be huge. And it doesn't matter if the plane went into flames and broke into two at 6,000 ft of altitude, that country would surely be held responsible for their death while they were being kept handcuffed.

In the second case, to administer them drugs without their consent you would need to go through a long process which would include a medical certificate for each individual stating a reason why he should be force given the drugs (e.g. psychological conditions) and still have it approved by a legal tribunal. Apart from the length of such a process, the chances to succeed in obtaining the approval for each and every individual would be very thin. And again, the legal responsibilities for their lifes if some accident happened would hang over the country authorities.

Clearly these bogus asylum seekers are well aware of these troubles, if not by their own knowledge by instructions of the human rights associations and other leftist and pro-immigration NGOs.