Immigration Minister Jason Kenney: The case for revoking Canadian terrorists’ citizenship

Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, right,stands alongside Calgary Northeast MP Devinder Shory in 2009.

Gavin Young/Postmedia NewsJason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, right,stands alongside Calgary Northeast MP Devinder Shory in 2009.

Chris Selley’s cynical dismissal of the proposal to strip Canadian citizenship from individuals who wage war against Canada or commit serious acts of terrorism (“The citizenship talking point,” Feb. 7) is too eager to assign superficial motives while ignoring the deeply rooted and principled reasons for the proposed reforms.

Canada’s 1947 Citizenship Act included the power to revoke citizenship from those guilty of treason. The removal of this provision in 1977 made Canada’s citizenship law an aberration, as most other liberal democracies have the legal authority to strip citizenship for such crimes as treason and terrorism. In Australia and the United Kingdom, for example, a person can be stripped of citizenship if it is in the public’s best interest — a much lower and vaguer standard than what MP Devinder Shory or I have suggested. Just last year, the United Kingdom revoked the citizenship of Mahdi Hashi for involvement in extremist activities.

Mr. Selley writes that, “if you gain citizenship legitimately, it’s yours unless you give it up. You have rights in Canada, and responsibilities to Canada, and Canada has a responsibility to you, including dealing with you if you blow up a bus in a faraway land.” I agree, up to a point.

Like the 1947 Citizenship Act and the Oath of Citizenship, Mr. Shory’s bill is predicated on the idea of reciprocal loyalty implicit in citizenship. If a Canadian passport-holder maintains another nationality while waging war against Canada or committing a serious act of terrorism, this should be construed for what it so obviously is: a violent severing of the bonds of loyalty implicit in the idea of citizenship. Without the possibility of such a sanction, Mr. Selley’s belief in a citizen’s “responsibilities to Canada” is just empty rhetoric.

But I reject the notion that, if someone takes up arms against the Canadian Forces or commits an act of violent terrorism, Canada should be forced to welcome them back as though the fundamental breach of mutual loyalty never occurred. Virtually no other liberal democracy, from France to New Zealand, from Switzerland to Brazil, believes they have such a self-destructive obligation.

Obviously there should be a high legal threshold for triggering deemed renunciation of citizenship, with appropriate legal safeguards. And, given our international treaty obligations, it can only be applied to those who hold dual or multiple nationalities, to avoid creating stateless persons.

 

Far from being opportunistic or cynical, Mr. Shory’s thoughtful private member’s bill and the amendments I have suggested would bring Canada back in line with the legal norm throughout the free world, and revive the assumptions that have always been implicit in our citizenship law.

National Post – February 12th 2013

Do you support/oppose Minister Kenney’s decision? We would love to hear from you!

 

Conference Paper? Or Conference Presentation?

Another Hook and Eye quick-pick

by Aimée Morrison

I laughed my ass off when I read this in the Chronicle. Professor Cebula’s inner monologue so neatly matches my own experience at conferences: early hope and enthusiasm turning to bored dread culminating in surreptitious smartphone tomfoolery and aimless stream of consciousness daydreaming … ending with published rants about crappy conference talks. I have zero tolerance for conference presentations that fail to meet a minimum standard of listenability.
However, where the Cebula and I part company is right here: he hates when people read papers from a prepared script. He prefers a more extemporaneous, a more spontaneous, a more conversational delivery, and like many people offering comments on the article, seems to think a prepared script and an engaging delivery are mutually exclusive.
Many, many, many commenters in fact make this distinction pretty clear, writing versions of this idea: “Stop reading your paper! You should do a presentation instead!”
This is silly. Knock it off.
What is the appropriate or normative format for the delivery of research at a conference varies by discipline. In English, my discipline, the done thing is to write out the whole text and to read it–arguably (that is, I am arguing) that in this field, our main evidence is the very sentences we construct to frame our interpretations of this, that, or the other. In other fields, it is normal to have one Powerpoint slide for every minute of presentation, with bullet pointed text on it. In other fields, the presentation consists of a couple of graphs or tables on Powerpoints, which are described in a more off-the-cuff manner. Other presentation formats include the round-table, or the panel discussion, or a Q and A.
Whether you read from a paper, describe one graph, or elaborate on bullet points on a series of slides is, mostly, a matter of what discipline you work in. It’s not really helpful to say that reading a paper is bad and showing lots of slides and talking from index cards is better. We’ve all seen brilliant presentations where the speaker is obviously working from a prepared text. And we’ve all seen really awful presentations with slides and no script. It’s not the format. It’s the skill.
So this is a defence of the conference paper. Yeah, a 3000 word essay, 10 pages of script that I’m going to print out and then hold somewhere in front of me while I talk to you, all six of you or sixty of you, out there in an audience. I read my papers. And I’m an awesome presenter. Ain’t nothing in the paper format that makes it inherently deadly. I mean, actors work from scripts on stage and on film, and they don’t crush us with boredom, right?
The main problem with papers I believe I have identified in an earlier post. It’s too much content crammed into too little time, which forces rushing or complaining or confusion or running too long.
If you want to craft an effective presentation from a “paper” you need to address three things:

  1. the text needs to be written for a listening rather than reading audience
  2. you will need to perform the written text, using your voice and body to add in the structure and emphasis and pacing marked visually by paragraph markers, bolding, sections, or bullets
  3. you need to practice. In advance. More than once.

A good text should: feature a variety of sentence lengths, employ conversational language, signpost what’s coming, and reiterate what’s passed. Repetition and simplicity is key. Here’s the opening paragraph of a conference paper I gave at Theorizing the Web last year in Maryland:

In asking every user, as it does, “What’s on your mind?” Facebook’s status update feature elicits personal disclosure, short bursts of self-narration that add up to a kind of autobiography. But how, exactly? The ways that compliant subjects answer the question demonstrate how their practices are shaped by the coaxing technologies, both discursive and material, afforded by the moment of interaction between status update interface and human user. Much of the scholarly investigation into “social network sites” focuses on the social and the network aspects: that is, why people interact with one another in these spaces and with what effect. But interpersonal relationships on Facebook are a second order interaction: fundamentally, the user at the computer is interacting with Facebook, first and foremost. This interaction remains to be explored. Employing the theory of “affordance” drawn from visual perception studies, as well as that of “coaxing,” drawn from auto/biography studies this paper offers a modest proposal for how to understand the relationship between social software and human user.

Delivery is key. A good text will get you nowhere unless you can deliver it. Good delivery involves: using gesture to demonstrate structure. Employing vocal tone and volume to indicate emphasis. Slowing down for the important bits. Paying attention to audience reaction, and leaving yourself enough room to work with that, even if just a “I know, right?” or “Wait, I’ll get to where I think you’re getting anxious about, you in the corner!”
Here’s me reading that same paragraph, like I would at the conference, except in my pyjamas in my dining room. Listen for how I perform the structure and emphasis in the text of my script (it’s a little weird to do it for a camera in close up …):

video

(You also can’t see that I’ve got slides to emphasize key words. That’ll be another post …)
You have to practice to do this well: know the text enough to be able to look up, and importantly, not to read your own sentences incorrectly because you don’t quite know where they’re headed. If you don’t practice–you can screw up the delivery of even a good text, thus:

video

Omigod, right? And I don’t mean “Omigod, right? I totally shaved 12 seconds off the delivery time, so I can keep those extra 300 words at the end!”
Anyhow. The moral of the story is this: it is possible to craft an effective reserach presentation from a written script, delivered text in hand, by reading. It is. Don’t write off the paper. It’s a matter of skill in authorship, skill in presentation, and the discipline to finish the script in a timely enough manner to allow you to rehearse it.
Thoughts? Gripes? Rebuttals?

We Are Here, for our Right to Be

Yes we camp

News and actions by the Osdorp camp refugees

In Amsterdam and The Hague rejected refugees from Africa and the Middle East are enduring the harsh weather in make shift tent camps where they demonstrate against the Dutch way of treating rejected refugees since September 4th (Amsterdam) and 19th (The Hague). Since 2010 asylum seekers who have been rejected are no longer entitled to basic rights such as shelter and food. Even when it is impossible to return to their countries of origin, the Dutch government argues that they can leave voluntarily. Denying them access to reception centers, putting them in prison and forcing them to survive in parks, railway stations and insecure hiding places, that is the way to convince them to leave this country. In the first half of 2012 4.680 asylum seekers have been dumped on the street without any life support, according to the International Network of Local Initiatives with Asylum seekers (INLIA). These self-organized action by the refugees have highlighted a humanitarian problem that has been growing for years and was hidden from the public eye. Now these people have made themselves visible and seek solutions by entering in dialogue with civil society and democratic representatives. To realize their aims they need to be together, safe and visible. Apparently the authorities want to make them disappear again. The only offer is for some of the refugees to go for 30 days in dispersed shelters for homeless people. After that they would again be on their own, insecure and invisible. A growing number of supporters is trying to create sustainable ways to continue this struggle for human rights. One way would be to make a space available as a meeting point for refugees, a House of Hope.

On their blog, the refugees that camp out in Amsterdam declared:

“We are here because our life is in danger. There are many reasons for this. War is the most important one. There are several armed conflicts in Africa that cost many lives, disrupt families and livelihoods. Political violence and oppression, religious division, problems between tribes and clans add to make solutions complicated. Drought, famine and other economic factors also push people to find a better future elsewhere. All these cases are inter-related. We can see this in the extremist movements. They make life impossible for you if you do not conform to strict rules. Having a drink can cost you your life. Being a member of another tribe, or of another religion, can bring you into deep trouble. So we are here because we face persecution and danger in our countries. We need to be in the Netherlands because this country is a free country where our lives are safe and we could build a future. “

We want your help. We want to get out of this situation. We want your help, not just with food and drinks, but with the broader issues. Help us with publicity, be creative: think about how you could help. Whether you’re politically active, or a journalist, everyone can help in their own way. We have 5 representatives you can talk to, to explain our situation.

The name “Refugees-on-the-Street” was coined when they started organizing in the spring of 2011 in Utrecht, with support of the STIL Foundation, a solidarity group for migrants without a residence permit. They are people who fled their home country, asked for asylum but were denied permission. The capstone of the asylum procedure is deportation. Undocumented migrants are systematically held in administrative detention for up to 18 months and this can be repeated endlessly. If they cannot be deported they are put on the street without any title of right, no shelter no care, nothing at all. Most of them go in hiding, including women with children. They depend on charity, on good will (or bad will) of private people. But more and more refuse to hide and they fight for a decent life, for hope.

Since the big tent camp in ter Apel everybody knows they are here. Through their demonstrations and actions, by their presence in the media and in politics they have joined the public debate. In Amsterdam the Camp against the Cold started on the 4th of September where a growing number of refugees find shelter, food, safety and medical care. With their slogan “WE ARE HERE” (WIJ ZIJN HIER) they show that WE are human beings, WE have nowhere to go, WE stay here until we have a solution that respects our human rights. In the camp at Notweg 32 in Amsterdam Osdorp are mainly African men and women (children are not allowed by the Mayor of Amsterdam) from Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenia, and francophone people from Congo, Mauretania, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Mali and Guinee. There are individuals from Yemen (2), China and Armenia.

In Den Haag a group of Iraqi (mostly Kurdish) refugees is camping near the central Staion in open tents in worse conditions than in Amsterdam. They carry the name RIGHT TO EXIST.

What’s KM?

What is Knowledge Mobilization?KM” aka: KMb (Knowledge Mobilization), KT (Knowledge Translation), KE (Knowledge Exchange), KB (Knowledge Brokering), KM (Knowledge Management) is part of a much larger knowledge field associated with brokering, translation, exchange and intermediation. While its fast growing terminology may be difficult to keep up with, what’s important to remember is that KM has one main objective and that’s the two-way sharing of knowledge. The idea is that knowledge is not just the business of experts, but something that concerns all of us and that should be used effectively to help foster change. In this sense, KM is about using knowledge in concrete ways by involving different groups of people such as academics, policy makers, community organizers, and students in bridging the gap between what we know with what is being done.

Check out what David Phipps, Director of Research Services & Knowledge Exchange at York University has to say about KM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hJZIskJLC1I

0:00 – 2:13   How knowledge mobilization can be used

2:13 – 4:46   Where does it come from?

4:46 – 7:15   The three basic questions

7:15 – 8:52   The model

0:00 – 2:24   The core of knowledge mobilization

2:24 – 6:22   Educational and career path

6:22 – 9:00   What is Knowledge Mobilization Works and who is their clientele?

Follow these links to see how others define KM:

Terms & Definitions

Conceptual Frameworks

 

KM in FM

How is knowledge on forced migration produced? Who produces it? How is it being used? Our aim is to bring KM into the forced migration conversation by calling attention to some basic, but crucial questions about knowledge and its practice.

Loren Landau (2012) in his article, Communities of Knowledge or Tyrannies of Partnership: Reflections on North–South Research Networks and the Dual Imperative, takes up some of these thorny questions. He argues that the knowledge partnerships between western scholars and southern researchers are often imbalanced. According to him, rather than fostering two-way knowledge exchanges much of the policy-oriented research in the south supported by western partnerships entrench the very type of one-way knowledge production they purport to challenge.

For the full text click on the PDF link below:

Obama Migration Bill to pass in Congress

Reid predicts Congress will pass immigration legislation

Sourced from Reuters

 WASHINGTON | Sun Feb 3, 2013 4:54pm EST

(Reuters) – The top Senate Democrat on Sunday predicted that Congress will pass and send to President Barack Obama legislation overhauling the U.S. immigration system, saying “things are looking really good.”

Obama last week expressed hope Congress can get a deal done on immigration, possibly in the first half of the year.

The president is proposing to give the roughly 11 million U.S. illegal immigrants – most of whom are Hispanics – a pathway to citizenship, a step that many Republicans have long fought.

Obama’s fellow Democrats control the Senate, but Republicans control the House of Representatives.

 Appearing on the ABC program “This Week,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked whether immigration legislation can win House passage.

“Well, it’s certainly going to pass the Senate. And it would be a bad day for our country and a bad day for the Republican Party if they continue standing in the way of this. So the answer is yes,” Reid said.

Obama choose Reid’s home state of Nevada, with a sizable Hispanic population, as the site for a major speech last Tuesday pushing Congress to pass an immigration bill.

Hispanic voters were crucial in helping Obama beat Republican nominee Mitt Romney – who advocated “self-deportation” of illegal immigrants – in Nevada in November.

“It has to get done,” Reid said of immigration legislation.

“It’s really easy to write principles. To write legislation is much harder. And once we write the legislation, then you have to get it passed. But I think things are looking really good,” Reid added.

After years on the back burner, immigration reform has suddenly looked possible as Republicans, chastened by the fact that more than 70 percent of Hispanic voters backed Obama in the November election, appear more willing to accept an overhaul.

Obama has pushed for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States that is faster than one proposed by a bipartisan group of eight influential senators.

Rather than emphasize border security first, Obama would let illegal immigrants get on a path to citizenship if they undergo national security and criminal background checks, pay penalties, learn English and get in line behind those foreigners seeking to immigrate legally.

The bipartisan Senate plan envisions taking steps to toughen security along the U.S.-Mexican border before setting in motion the steps illegal immigrants must take to gain legal status.

“Every time I’ve talked about this, I say there are a few things we need,” Reid said. “Number one is border security, southern and northern border security. We have to do that. We have to have a pathway to legalization. We have to make sure that the employer sanctions work.”

On another matter, Reid expressed “utmost confidence” in New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, incoming chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee who last week denied allegations that he had engaged in sex with prostitutes during free trips to the Dominican Republic provided by a political donor.

“Oh, I have confidence he did nothing wrong, but that’s what investigations are all about,” Reid said.

Menendez is one of the members of the bipartisan Senate group working on immigration.

(Reporting by Will Dunham; Editing by Sandra Maler)

Kenya’s Dadaab finds innovative ways to educate knowledge-hungry refugees / BHER

New university campus near Dadaab complex aims to improve life for Somali refugees and prepare them for returning home

in Dadaab

MDG migration Dadaab

A Somali refugee girl writes on a board at a makeshift outdoor classroom at Dagahaley camp in Dadaab. Photograph: Finbarr O’Reilly/Reuters

A humble, green-roofed building on the outskirts of the world’s largest refugee settlement in north-eastern Kenya could be the unlikely portal that opens Ahmed Noor Hassan’s life, and the lives of thousands of other Somali refugees, to the world.

This is the proposed site for the Dadaab campus of Kenyatta University, the first higher-level institution to serve a refugee site. Classes, due to start in a few weeks, will include diploma, undergraduate and master’s courses in public policy, peace and conflict studies, commerce and education. They will be open to refugees, students from the local community and staff from humanitarian agencies.

“It will open the life of refugees to the external world,” says Noor Hassan, 25, a youth leader who is hanging out with friends in a small compound in Dagahaley, one of the five camps that make up the Dadaab refugee complex. “Our problems will be understood by the world.”

MDG Dadaab University

Ahmed Noor Hassan, 25, a youth leader at the Dagahaley camp in Dadaab, the world’s largest refugee complex, January 2013.

(Photograph: Clar Ni Chonghaile for the Guardian).

There is much to understand. In Dadaab, 448,000 refugees, mostly from Somalia, live in five giant camps in a sweltering, scrub-covered expanse of sand. Some camps have winding streets and trees, while the newest feature rows of tents housing people who fled Somalia’s famine in 2011. The idea of opening a university campus here is audacious – this corner of Kenya, just 90km (55 miles) from the border with Somalia, has been hit hard by years of war against the Islamic insurgents of al-Shabaab.

Improvised explosive devices have targeted police patrols in the camps, aid workers have been kidnapped, and several elders and community leaders have been shot. Foreign visitors must take a police escort to visit the site, and aid workers’ movements are restricted. Kenyan security forces have also been accused of abuses in the camps, after bomb attacks against them.

Noor Hassan wants to improve his skills so that when he goes home he can compete with Somali returnees from the US and Europe. He has applied to study public policy and administration at the new campus and although the fee of 100,000 shillings (£730) a year is high, he hopes he can raise it through savings and from friends living abroad.

The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, is seeking partners to provide scholarships to the new campus.

“If I finish, I will move to Somalia and take the risk, because no pain, no gain. If I stay here, I will be wasting my energy and my youth,” Noor Hassan says. “Let me have four more years of difficulty, then I can go there.”

Marangu Njogu, executive director of the Windle Trust, helped mobilise support for the Dadaab campus. Known as “the father of education” in Dadaab, he is a key player in the Borderless Higher Education for Refugees (Bher) project, a partnership between Canadian and Kenyan institutions aimed at improving education opportunities for refugees and marginalised local communities.

The Kenyatta University campus will “act as a launchpad [for Bher] to provide education for the refugees”, he says, arguing that education is as essential as emergency services. “When people look at refugees coming, and say, ‘We can’t do education because it’s an emergency’, it’s a disservice to the people … Education is the most critical element in helping human beings to develop and be self-reliant,” he says.

“We should provide education immediately, give people skills to be able to be in charge of their lives, and give them opportunities to interact with other people instead of just bundling them together,” Njogu says, adding that education also prevents young people from engaging in “antisocial activities”.

Programme development manager Tom Oindo says Windle Trust aims to improve life in the camps but also to prepare people for returning home. The organisation places a special emphasis on enabling girls to further their education. “We try to give a transformative education to ensure that we are actually equipping our scholars with skills to be able to contribute to the development of their home countries but, at the same time, have requisite skills to survive within the current situation.”

This idea underlies the Bher programme, which will provide a wide range of courses to refugees through a mix of online and on site resources, says Professor Wenona Giles of York University in Toronto, one of Bher’s lead partners.

Bher will not charge tuition fees, but will need contributions to cover direct costs. The consortium – including York University, Kenyatta University, the University of British Columbia and Kenya’s Moi University – wants to set up a fund to help refugees with transport, food and other expenses.

“This is a pilot project from which we can learn in order to do this in other sites,” says Giles. “Education is a right. And higher education should be a right. We’re looking at [using] phones, radios, MP3 players. We are going to use everything we can.” The Bher project will also have a learning centre on the Dadaab campus.

Technology is key to another education initiative in Dadaab: a joint project between UNHCR’s education and innovation units that has received funding and support from Microsoft and Kenyan telecoms firm Safaricom.

Erin Hayba, an associate community services officer and an innovation iFellow for UNHCR, says the aim is to give a laptop to each school to manage education information, including school attendance and learning, install computer labs in every secondary school, and provide computers for vocational training centres.

The project involves training teachers on how to use computers in the classrooms, and organising electricity and internet connections. Some funding is provided by a UNHCR campaign to provide solar power in schools.

For the project to succeed, Hayba says, teachers, parents and community leaders must be involved. She has been surprised by the enthusiasm she has encountered. “[The refugee communities] are even contributing in small financial ways … Some of the computers are in [school] science labs. The refugees bought fabric and made curtains and covers to keep off the dust … It’s that ownership.”

These projects all have the common aim of increasing self-reliance among Dadaab residents, many of whom do not fit the classic profile of refugees but who still find themselves living extremely restricted lives.

“If you give someone food it is only keeping them alive for a few days,” says Noor Hassan. “For the future, we need to be empowered. I would like the youth of Dadaab to be able to compete with the other diaspora refugees back in Somalia.”

Available at: The Guardian

For failed asylum seekers, life on section 4 is a nightmare worse than Kafka: Whether the motivation is malicious or politically manipulative, government cannot continue to treat failed asylum seekers like this

, The Guardian, Wednesday 30 January 2013 20.30 GMT

Matt Kenyon

Illustration by Matt Kenyon

The first person I met on section 4 asylum support lived in Stockton-on-Tees, with her daughter who was nearly two. I hadn’t heard of the Azure card, or any of the mean-minded hassles that went along with it – that your benefits, such as they are, come in vouchers rather than cash, so you can’t get a bus or make a phone call, can’t post a letter or buy a pint of milk from your corner shop. You have to be housed three miles from a shop that takes your Azure card; that can mean a six-mile walk every time you want to buy something.

She lived in a hostel, where her baby was constantly ill, and so were all the other babies, and an ambulance pulled up outside at least once a week. Her English was so fluent, and her qualifications so varied, and her manner so dispassionate and composed, that it was easy to forget she was an actual case study. It was more like talking theoretically about a really inhumane system; we were just two regular joes tapping at an aquarium, wondering if the octopus looked stressed.

The fact that she and her daughter were a case study was brought home rather forcefully last week, when she was evicted, rendered homeless and without support, by the UK Border Agency. The given reason was that she hadn’t returned a form (she’d returned it twice). It seemed to me more likely that this was a punishment for the fact that she’d spoken to two newspapers and given evidence to a parliamentary inquiry (which published its findings today).

But who could prove anything? She couldn’t even prove she’d posted her form – she had no money to register postage. A kerfuffle ensued: Sarah Teather, who led the inquiry, contacted the asylum seeker’s MP; a journalist on the Independent called the UK Border Agency; a petition went up on the campaign site Change.org. The eviction was retracted. She remains on section 4, and has no way of knowing what her next misdemeanour will be, in the eyes of the Border Agency. You’d call it Kafka-esque, except for the deficiency of that nightmare – Josef K, of course, didn’t have a two-year-old to worry about.

The findings of that inquiry are chilling to read. A family slept for months on the floor of a mosque. A woman had twins prematurely, lost one and had to walk to and from the hospital to keep appointments for the other, carrying the baby and an oxygen cylinder. A woman gave birth while her benefits were delayed, and had to carry her newborn home in her arms, because she didn’t have buggy or any money for a bus. Another woman died of a brain condition brought on by being HIV positive, and her baby starved to death.

None of this reflects very well on any government – indeed, on any society – but sometimes the razzle-dazzle of grotesque tragedy drowns out an obvious question: what is the point of section 4? Why would anyone devise a system so fraught with needless difficulty, in which hardship is so inevitable that it must be deliberate?

While their claims are pending, asylum seekers are on section 95, which was set at 70% of income support (since utilities are covered, as part of housing), and is paid in cash. If their claim is refused, but they can’t be repatriated because the country is too dangerous (I know, it sounds illogical – but the criteria for asylum are far stricter than “my country is too dangerous to live in”), they go on to section 4, which is lower and paid on a card.

There’s no rationale behind it – you don’t need less money when your claim has been refused, it’s not as though you’re suddenly allowed to work – unless it functions as a deterrent, or as a spur to return home. It never does. Asylum seekers don’t window- shop for the best place to flee to – that decision is usually made for them, by the agent – once here, whatever the deprivations, it’s usually not as bad as being tortured or killed.

If it doesn’t deter people, does it at least save money? Probably not. It isn’t cheap, having a whole department to administrate a benefits system used by relatively few people with all sorts of abstruse rules (they can’t buy condoms, on an Azure card – why not? So they’ll get pregnant, and everything will become that much harder, and the hardship will provide even more incentive to return to a war zone … hang on …). Teather has asked the public accounts committee to report on costs.

If it doesn’t save money, the purpose is either vindictive – a genuine malice borne by the home secretary towards foreigners in need – or it’s political, Theresa May backing up her tough, tough talk about how human rights are rubbish because someone she heard about at the Ukip Conference of Made Up Case Studies couldn’t be deported because he had a cat.

Asylum is a private fiefdom of the Home Office. May doesn’t have to report to parliament on the conditions of asylum seekers, and whether their benefits are uprated or frozen. As a result she’s said nothing, and for 2012-13 they’ve de facto been frozen. Part of me thinks it doesn’t matter whether her purpose is malicious or manipulative, and you could send yourself mad trying to climb inside the minds of these people. But another part of me thinks that if there is no point at all to section 4 which a reasonable person would admit to, that does matter.

Twitter: @zoesqwilliams

“Britain: it’s rubbish. Don’t come here. Move to Italy or Germany instead, the weather’s much nicer and the transport infrastructure isn’t on the verge of collapse”…

Over the weekend The Guardian ran a story that the British Government was reportedly considering a negative ad campaign to discourage would-be immigrants. Yesterday, James Walsh, a columnist for The Guardian invited readers to respond to the ludicrous idea with their own tongue-in-cheek suggestions. Check it out! Below are some of the contributions submitted by the public.

 

 

Cameron-Seagull

 

restrictions-apply

 

uk-yuk

 

real-britain