The asylum and immigration act 2004 [uk] - Article Example

Those who live in countries without fear need to recognize pain and suffering as a tradition unnecessary in civilized society. As such, the UK's Immigration and Asylum Act 2004 seeks to define itself as a hierarchy of needs unto itself. Such acts of self-preservation are not to be insulted without praise for their intent since we all realize the benefits of prevention in the face of terrorist attacks and inflated costs incurred from their aftermath of despair. What we need to reveal, however, is a true picture of an Act that offers little to those who seek its brilliance, and most to those who aim to halt claims by avoiding the most important issue: Human Rights.

As a result of research, Amnesty International suspects that at least 27,000 and 25,000 people who had sought asylum at some stage were detained in 2003 and 2004 respectively for some period of time. This represents a very significant use of detention and immediately raises the question of whether such prolific use of detention is in compliance with international human rights law. (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document Nov. 18, 2005, p 3). This reveals a disturbing fact about how we interpret the suffering of those who live in regions beyond our worst nightmares.

Incarceration is being offered by the Home Office as a means of maintaining order for those claims which pose a potential risk to society. How risk is assessed, unfortunately, remains to be decided. Absconding and criminal destruction of personal identification are the two main threats believed controlled by an Act which seeks to hold each claim in contempt. Proponents of the Act use theoretical proofs as reality. They anticipate reducing the flow of claims through a process which speeds their denial and then revokes any privilege, regardless of its merit.

Amnesty International's report United Kingdom: Seeking Asylum is not a Crime, Detention of people who have sought asylum, relates countless tales of misery during unnecessary detainment in prisons meant for dangerous criminals have been investigated through Amnesty International's pervasive and methodological research. The latter provides concrete interviews with asylum seekers, as well as well-demonstrated accounts of inhumane conditions in many detainment centres. Such scientific data need not be condemned by colloquial ads that propose solutions to a problem they have chosen to ignore.

One such excerpt was a quote from The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, who said: The Act will speed up the appeals and removals process. Everyone benefits from a fair and decisive system and we need to make clear to those who have reached the end of the road and do not have a valid claim that they must leave. (Stansfield, Aug. 9, 2005, p.1).Regardless of the few who win asylum, the majority of claims are rejected and asked to return to the land they fled. Often, months of waiting reveal an end that