Asylum seekers waiting 12 months for a decision to remain are allowed to apply for work

I have a big enough problem with our own born and bred criminals I would like to be 100% certain that the Government of the day is not allowing other countries criminals to gain leave to stay by any means.

I have the upmost sympathy for those fleeing for their lives from war zones etc., and can only hope that they have their claims processed as quick as their circumstances allow.

Did you read the link I posted?

No, Maizie - if a DBS check using fingerprints shows none on record, regardless of country of origin, the test is passed.

Are you absolutely sure, positive, of that in relation to asylum seekers? No fingerprints, no papers and they get a job as a carer (not a cleaner, a porter or a washerup, as a carer?)

Seems most unlikely to me...

A negative on the finger print check of someone without papers from a country which can’t or won’t produce criminal records is a DBS pass, even after asylum has been granted. If you have no papers then who is to say you are not who you claim to be?

Germanshepherdsmum

MaizieD

Germanshepherdsmum

The list I posted is up to date Maizie. This link shows that DBS checks on asylum seekers without papers rely on fingerprints. There must be a number of countries from which asylum seekers travel which would have no available fingerprint evidence if the asylum seeker had committed a crime there. It seems to me a wholly unreliable method of checking.
www.carecheck.co.uk/dbs-checks-for-asylum-seekers-refugees/

If they don't have a fingerprint or papers then presumably they won't get a job with the vulnerable, anyway., because thee is no evidence of their fitness or unfitness for the job.

Why are people assuming that asylum seekers get some sort of leeway which isn't legally allowed for other job applicants?

Scaremongering...

No, Maizie - if a DBS check using fingerprints shows none on record, regardless of country of origin, the test is passed.

We are talking about the highest level of DBS check here - I assume you know that - so finger prints will be one of numerous checks all of which must be met.

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD you are twisting my posts.

My point and I do happen to think it is both relevant and extremely important, is that people waiting more than twelve months who have not had their claims approved have by this very definition not been identified, verified that they are innocent of misdemeanours in their place of birth, unable to be DBS checked

It could result in totally unsuitable and unchecked people working in the care sector.

Which would be a reasonable argument GrannyGravy if most of it wasn't made up. No facts really. None on how many if any are working in care. Certainly no facts, or knowledge backing the insinuation that if asylum seekers are among those abusing older people.

I think letting people work after a year is both humane and sensible and it should put pressure on the government to get on and do its job instead of acting as if that job is entertainment of the masses. I would hope the next step is to give automatic citizenship to anyone who has not had their case processed after, say, three years.

Why on earth should the Government (any Government) give automatic leave to stay and asylum status because the claimants claim has taken three years or more.

There may be a multitude of reasons for the length taken, particularly in those who have no papers whether they be mislaid or deliberately destroyed.

In an ideal world there would be offices/bureaus in other Countries where those seeking asylum in the U.K. could apply which would do away with the gangs of criminals putting people in dangerous small boats or unsafe lorries for extortionate amounts of money.

Oh, and yes, it may even make government take the jobs of the civil servants seriously.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD you are twisting my posts.

My point and I do happen to think it is both relevant and extremely important, is that people waiting more than twelve months who have not had their claims approved have by this very definition not been identified, verified that they are innocent of misdemeanours in their place of birth, unable to be DBS checked

It could result in totally unsuitable and unchecked people working in the care sector.

Which would be a reasonable argument GrannyGravy if most of it wasn't made up. No facts really. None on how many if any are working in care. Certainly no facts, or knowledge backing the insinuation that if asylum seekers are among those abusing older people.

I think letting people work after a year is both humane and sensible and it should put pressure on the government to get on and do its job instead of acting as if that job is entertainment of the masses. I would hope the next step is to give automatic citizenship to anyone who has not had their case processed after, say, three years.

I think my main concern is that the civil service/home office seem to be so behind with the processing of asylum claims, with some asylum seekers allegedly lost in the system and might/might not be living and working in the grey economy.

I have little to no faith in the powers that be competently and fully checking individuals before allowing them to work in many areas, care sector included.

MaizieD

Germanshepherdsmum

The list I posted is up to date Maizie. This link shows that DBS checks on asylum seekers without papers rely on fingerprints. There must be a number of countries from which asylum seekers travel which would have no available fingerprint evidence if the asylum seeker had committed a crime there. It seems to me a wholly unreliable method of checking.
www.carecheck.co.uk/dbs-checks-for-asylum-seekers-refugees/

If they don't have a fingerprint or papers then presumably they won't get a job with the vulnerable, anyway., because thee is no evidence of their fitness or unfitness for the job.

Why are people assuming that asylum seekers get some sort of leeway which isn't legally allowed for other job applicants?

Scaremongering...

No, Maizie - if a DBS check using fingerprints shows none on record, regardless of country of origin, the test is passed.

Chocolatelovinggran

In Norway asylum seekers can access the ( generous) benefit system before their claim is processed. The caveat is that they must
1. Attend Norwegian language classes
2. Work 16 hours in the local community, within a proscribed job opportunity.
One of these offers in the area I know is in a care home - cleaning, cooking, in the laundry, so that care staff can care.
The theory is that everyone needs the dignity of work, and that people become part of their new community, recognised and welcomed as fellow workers. Infringements involve a loss of benefits.

Sounds a civilised way of proceeding

In Norway asylum seekers can access the ( generous) benefit system before their claim is processed. The caveat is that they must
1. Attend Norwegian language classes
2. Work 16 hours in the local community, within a proscribed job opportunity.
One of these offers in the area I know is in a care home - cleaning, cooking, in the laundry, so that care staff can care.
The theory is that everyone needs the dignity of work, and that people become part of their new community, recognised and welcomed as fellow workers. Infringements involve a loss of benefits.

Historical abuse of elderly people in care homes was by staff who had been checked. I've no objection to asylum seekers being checked (assuming it can be done better than the Home Office snail's pace) but it's no guarantee of the eventual outcome. We should not assume that all asylum seekers are dubious characters.

Germanshepherdsmum

The list I posted is up to date Maizie. This link shows that DBS checks on asylum seekers without papers rely on fingerprints. There must be a number of countries from which asylum seekers travel which would have no available fingerprint evidence if the asylum seeker had committed a crime there. It seems to me a wholly unreliable method of checking.
www.carecheck.co.uk/dbs-checks-for-asylum-seekers-refugees/

If they don't have a fingerprint or papers then presumably they won't get a job with the vulnerable, anyway., because thee is no evidence of their fitness or unfitness for the job.

Why are people assuming that asylum seekers get some sort of leeway which isn't legally allowed for other job applicants?

Scaremongering...

And can you also point to a rogue asylum seeker who apparently by-passing the DBS checks has gone on to assault a person living in one of these homes.

Or indeed if this is actually happening at all.

I am sure that you can find many instances of assault by care workers who are not asylum seekers.

This is all nonsense.

They can only be given permission to take a job on the approved list if they have, through no fault of their own, been waiting more than twelve months for their asylum application to be determined. The only other type of work allowed is voluntary work.

My concern is the DBS process for anyone without documentary evidence of identification. As I said above, the last resort reliance on fingerprints of foreign nationals is worrying. The fact that the country of origin is unable or unwilling to cooperate in this respect is not evidence that the person has not committed a crime. The link I provided shows that a care home can place reliance on a fingerprint check carried out through fingerprints only, both before and after asylum is granted. That is not scaremongering. It is a fact.

But honestly there is zero evidence being presented. I think this is a scaremongering story and that is all. Not worth discussing.

Anniebach

Presumably they have to find some other type of employment !

Yes if they can’t satisfy the DBS checks. So retail, entertainment sector etc.

There are U.K. people who can’t pass these checks so will work in other sectors

Presumably they have to find some other type of employment !

Anniebach

Can asylum seekers be thoroughly checked ?

If not then presumably they have to find some other type of employment.

This really is a scaremongering thread.

Frankly there is nothing to see here as zero evidence has been produced.

The vast majority are good people that just want to work and have a better life, the same as everyone else that lives here.

There is no "right to work" asylum seekers may seek permission to work and only if the delay is through no fault of their own
The policy outlining when permission to work will be granted to those who claim asylum is set out in the Immigration Rules. This makes clear that the Home Office may grant permission to work to asylum seekers whose claim has been outstanding for more than 12 months through no fault of their own

Can asylum seekers be thoroughly checked ?

No a continuation of the culture war. 🤡

Just listening to O’Brien - talking about culture war NT and RNLI and Tory wokery.

The NT effort has successfully been dealt with by the members who overwhelmingly rejected Moggs effort at overturning the NT management. He attacked the NT for explaining how the wonderful architecture in some if the houses was funded by the slave trade. His bigotry was totally rejected.

The RNLI was criticised for rescuing drowning “foreigners” and their subscription rose enormously as a result.

The majority are quietly making their feelings felt.

Sorry I diverse.

The list I posted is up to date Maizie. This link shows that DBS checks on asylum seekers without papers rely on fingerprints. There must be a number of countries from which asylum seekers travel which would have no available fingerprint evidence if the asylum seeker had committed a crime there. It seems to me a wholly unreliable method of checking.
www.carecheck.co.uk/dbs-checks-for-asylum-seekers-refugees/