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

The points I am making are it is possible to bypass any system. If the powers that be genuinely wished to quickly,humanely and effectively process people seeking asylum, they could do so.

caknib

Of course people seeking asylum can be checked?

Ian Huntley was checked.

Unfortunately, the agency checking Ian Huntley was lax and didn't do the right checks. In any case, even the current DBS checks wouldn't have stopped him. He gained access to the girls through his girlfriend, who didn't have a criminal record.

Caknib
How would you check an Afghan who more than likely never had his birth registered.

Caknib
Ukraine is a civilised operating country. The vast majority would have papers to prove who they are and we were able to check.

I have no idea what you mean.

Anybody can be checked and anybody who is working unsupervised can do as they please. The HO is not fit for purpose. This could be resolved if the will was there.

Take the response to the Ukrainian situation, as if by magic a system appeared.

Marthajolly, many of the jobs on the list would require proof of qualification, and in many cases a foreign qualification, if it can be proved to exist, is not recognised in the UK.

caknib - what is the relevance of Ian Huntley having been checked?

caknib

Of course people seeking asylum can be checked?

Ian Huntley was checked.

🤔

I don't think you understand how it works.

Marthjolly1

There are many other jobs on the list. I don't think it mentioned carework as as the only option. Asylum seekers come from many walks of life and varied fields of expertise. I have worked in the care profession in England and Scotland, quite a few of own national carers should be no where near a care home

Now in one post, I was lambasted for saying that about foreign workers I'd had the misfortune to work with. Wonder if you'll get the same. There are good and bad in all nationalities.
I agree with you, not enough filtering when people are given these jobs, although there should be.

Of course people seeking asylum can be checked?

Ian Huntley was checked.

These systems are not perfect whether applied to UK national or immigrants/refugees and there is always a risk that dubious characters slip through. Even highly rigorous vetting systems have failed to spot bad actors. The residual risk has to be accepted.

Callistemon
A new website is being built as we speak. This is supposed to speed up the process. But dealing with the home office can be painful business for developers trying to get answers iykwim 😉

varian

It's time they were checked.

If just a fraction of the money wasted on this Rwanda nonsense had been used to recruit the staff needed to speed up checks, by now most could be settled and working and the rest sent back.

Yes, absolutely.

It's the "everybody's bad but us" neo-Tory creed, isn't it. Now I wonder where that happened before?

It's time they were checked.

If just a fraction of the money wasted on this Rwanda nonsense had been used to recruit the staff needed to speed up checks, by now most could be settled and working and the rest sent back.

It is also vile scaremongering to suggest that the majority of asylum seekers and refugees are criminals, they are not
No-one has said that.

Nor are they all doctors, lawyers, nurses as some seem to believe.

But there may be a few criminals as well as a few professional people just as in any other sector.

The bottom line is - they have not been checked.
.

It's a valid reason for caution.

If people already living in this country have to have a DBS check before being allowed to work with vulnerable people, including children, how is it possible that someone can be accepted for this work before all the proper checks are made?

Desperation more like with a looming election.
Probably

Expect more back-of-an-envelope hasty decisions.

Exactly what Germanshepherdsmum says.

Whether you find it ludicrous or not, you will see from the link I posted that the DBS check for someone who doesn’t possess the requisite documentation is a fingerprint check. The accuracy of the result will obviously depend on the record keeping and cooperation of the person’s actual or alleged country of origin. Nobody is suggesting that unchecked asylum seekers could work as healthcare assistants, but the standard of checking if someone has no documentation is clearly going to be far less satisfactory than if they do have documentation. Some have documentation, some don’t.

Where has anybody suggested that the majority of asylum seekers or refugees are criminals? Nowhere. But some are - I would be surprised if nobody here had not heard of an asylum seeker , refugee or economic migrant being convicted of a crime.

And ‘all our systems’ are not in a mess. Clear where your political allegiance doesn’t lie though.

I find the idea that an undocumented asylum seeker could, after 12 months take work in the care sector, without passing all the normal DBS checks etc, totally ludicrous. I know that all our systems are in a total mess as a result of this Conservative govt but to suggest unchecked asylum seekers (or anyone else for that matter) could be working in our hospitals or care homes (or for private agencies) is just scaremongering of the worst kind. It is also vile scaremongering to suggest that the majority of asylum seekers and refugees are criminals, they are not. I think anyone suggesting this should examine why they think this might be true and if it is because they no longer trust our institutions to do a decent job, perhaps they should think about which party they are going to vote for at the next election.

Of course I read it before posting Maizie. A passport photo is not a passport. Using fingerprints is the only resort when there is no documentary ID.

Casdon

Care organisations are unable to appoint anybody who comes into contact with cared for people without a DBS check.

But, as I discovered recently when looking for private care for a relative, self employed independent carers are not required to either be DBS checked or registered with CQC. It’s down to whoever is employing them to check and insist that they are appropriately registered before they take up employment.

Germanshepherdsmum

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?

That is not what it says on the link that you most helpfully provided, GSM. Perhaps you should have read it.

Start

Getting a DBS Check Without Fingerprinting

Having fingerprints taken can feel intimidating, especially for those who have experienced a traumatic refugee situation. So if the asylum seekers that your organisation is working with do not want to be re-fingerprinted, the individuals must go through route one.

Asylum seekers and refugees will need to have one of the following documents, as well as two further documents from either groups 1,2a or 2b to avoid the fingerprint method:

A Biometric residence permit
A valid passport
A UK Driving licence with photo card and counterpart (full or provisional)

End

And.

To provide a fingerprint for checking:

Step 6: The individual must sign the consent letter and return it with passport photos to authorise their fingerprints to be taken to establish their identity.

So let’s assume you are correct (I don’t think that you are) can you convince me by producing evidence that asylum seekers have successfully manipulated the system and have as a result been able to get into the care system and harm someone?

Germanshepherdsmum

Did you read the link I posted?

I did