What a Racket!

It has emerged recently in the press that the Home Secretary in the Labour Government has proposed several new policy ideas in terms of immigration.

Although the full policy details relating to both of these policy proposals is not yet known in full, it is suggested that both of these policies will result in disaster. It is further asserted that each of these proposals in turn will lead to further corruption and abuse of the system on a grand scale. So, let us examine the first proposal, which has been floated as a means to tackle the large backlog of cases awaiting decisions in the Immigration Tribunals.

Immigration Tribunals are courts that sit solely to decide on matters of immigration. Currently the case in question is usually heard by an Immigration Judge. Usually the Appellant, the person applying for leave to remain, is represented by a lawyer or sometimes more than person from the law firm representing the Appellant. The hearings are public hearings. This means that friends, associates or supporters of the Appellant are also able to attend. Sometimes, officials from Youth Services will attend in support of an application, particularly in cases of those who claim to be children or who are under 25. Often those attending from Youth Services are highly politicised and it is argued lack objectivity in terms of case management. I have known of situations where officials have tried to act in an impartial and objective manner at hearings being subjected to abuse at Immigration Tribunals from friends and associates of the Appellants.

It is entirely possible that the same officials that go to offer support to Appellants are the same officials who have played a role in the decision-making processes, where there are disputes in terms of age assessments. Appellants may have claimed to be under 18 when they arrived in The UK as the financial assistance available to those who are accepted as having been under 18 on arrival is huge in comparison to those who are deemed to be adults. It is therefore suggested that conflicts of interest may exist whereby those going to the Immigration Tribunal to support a claim may have also had a significant role in deciding if that Appellant is an adult or a child.

Mahmood’s proposals to create a new authority to deal with the backlog of cases already stinks of even more bureaucracy, however, the proposal to recruit Citizen Adjudicators to make binding decisions on cases appears even more nefarious.  There is enough information in the public domain to suggest that age discrimination is rife in the UK employment market. There is also sufficient evidence in the public domain that supports the notion that anti-white racism is a factor in hiring decisions. One would imagine if Mahmood is intent on proceeding with this scheme it will involve the hiring of hundreds of Citizen Adjudicators, those best suited to the role would have considerable life experience in contrast to political activists from the left.

It is argued that the type of people who are likely to be selected to be Citizen Adjudicators will be those who hail from the Labour regime’s favourite and beloved identity groups. Almost certainly there will be a diversity quota. I would assert almost certainly there will be unconscious or conscious bias on the part of government hiring staff, even to the point of downright discrimination against those with life experience (age discrimination) those who may be Christians , white or not sufficiently brown enough. Almost certainly men will face discrimination as will most older women. I stand to be proven wrong in this regard but one only has to look at the recent record of many government agencies to see that my suggestions in terms of the hiring of Citizen Adjudicators are not vexatious.

It is argued that it is highly likely that the overwhelming final cohort of these Citizen Adjudicators will be feminists, left wing political activists, ethnic minorities etc. It is further suggested that whilst in many immigration cases currently there appears to be a lack of objectivity when deciding Immigration Tribunal cases based on the information that is in the public domain, it is argued that the situation will not improve with the appointment of Citizen Adjudicators in deciding cases when it comes to bias. Indeed it is argued that there will be even greater bias at Immigration Tribunals than there is currently when hearings are chaired by future Citizen Adjudicators.

The other policy floated by Mahmood is the policy of Sponsorship of a Refugee. As we have seen the term refugee is a term that can mean many different things to many different people. The term refugee in 2026 is highly elastic. Although I have yet to see full details of the policy proposed by Mahmood it is understood that visas will be given to those who claim to be refugees where the same refugees have found a sponsor. The sponsor will be required to provide accommodation. The sponsor will receive £350 per month per person for their trouble.

Now whilst there may be some good sponsors who will provide satisfactory accommodation, it is argued there will be many who will abuse the system. In around 2010 The Home Office carried out a number of raids in Southall, London. The Home Office found large numbers of people who had arrived in the UK illegally living in garden sheds with a bucket for washing and a bucket for the toilet. Those living in the garden sheds were employed in local businesses and private homes as slaves. It is does require much imagination to see how such a scheme as that being proposed by Mahmood could be subject to abuse and corruption.

I have no doubt that there are sufficient extended families throughout the entire UK who are already rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of not only importing friends, associates, acquaintances or extended family on the pretence of their  fleeing persecution but also delighting in the prospect of claiming £350 per month (possibly tax free) for each of those fleeing persecution that they take in.

You may disagree but the sponsorship scheme sounds like the opportunity for a complete racket to me. As for the Citizen Adjudicators I am speechless.

This article (What a Racket!) was created and published by Free Speech Backlash and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Mrs M Ducks

Featured image: Free Speech Backlash (modified)