Illegal entry arrest stats

[Digga]

Finally, it seems the issue is receiving proper scrutiny.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37215764

The numbers, relating to the period from Jan 2013 to Apr 2016, are pretty shocking:

• 27,800 arrests of illegals within the UK
• 145,157 attempted illegals apprehended by Uk border agencies within the EU

The article also discusses the fact that there are no reliable figures on illegals - by definition, they exist under the radar. (It fails to mention that, those with the most criminal connections in their home nations are probably best able to use contacts to evade detection.)

Most people knew this and, I think, it was instrumental in many minds, when considering the referendum. It's not often I find myself agreeing with Vaz (and the irony of the author of the Hinduja scandal getting on his high horse about immigration is not lost on me), but he sums up the situation pretty well in this case.

[superlightr]

be more interesting to see how many are actually removed from the UK......

the same ii may be arrested a number times which may fubar the figures.

[Cupramax]

superlightr said:

be more interesting to see how many are actually removed from the UK......

This, definitely.

[Digga]

Cupramax said:

superlightr said:

be more interesting to see how many are actually removed from the UK......

This, definitely.

I think this, and the deficiencies in the UK Border Agency are the elephant in the room. Of course it was May herself who oversaw some disastrous changes to the BA.

[Cupramax]

Would be usefull to know how many were visa overstays and how many actually entered illegally.

[Digga]

Cupramax said:

Would be usefull to know how many were visa overstays and how many actually entered illegally.

Yes, FWIW, they were not included in these figures.

[Mrr T]

Digga said:

Finally, it seems the issue is receiving proper scrutiny.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37215764

The numbers, relating to the period from Jan 2013 to Apr 2016, are pretty shocking:

• 27,800 arrests of illegals within the UK
• 145,157 attempted illegals apprehended by Uk border agencies within the EU

The article also discusses the fact that there are no reliable figures on illegals - by definition, they exist under the radar. (It fails to mention that, those with the most criminal connections in their home nations are probably best able to use contacts to evade detection.)

Most people knew this and, I think, it was instrumental in many minds, when considering the referendum. It's not often I find myself agreeing with Vaz (and the irony of the author of the Hinduja scandal getting on his high horse about immigration is not lost on me), but he sums up the situation pretty well in this case.

I agree this almost certainly did effect the referendum result.

Which says a lot about the voters in the referendum that something which has nothing to do with our membership of the EU effected how people voted.

[Digga]

Mrr T said:

I agree this almost certainly did effect the referendum result.

Which says a lot about the voters in the referendum that something which has nothing to do with our membership of the EU effected how people voted.

I'll call you on that last comment. Whether or not the EU itself influences the outcomes - and IMHO, with Schengen and with a dysfunctional border policy and a abject lack of plan in dealing with the refugee crisis, it does - the problem in the article relates in part to immigration from the EU.

If they are not supposed to be here then, broadly and in the majority of cases, neither were they supposed to be within the EU.

[Mrr T]

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

I agree this almost certainly did effect the referendum result.

Which says a lot about the voters in the referendum that something which has nothing to do with our membership of the EU effected how people voted.

I'll call you on that last comment. Whether or not the EU itself influences the outcomes - and IMHO, with Schengen and with a dysfunctional border policy and a abject lack of plan in dealing with the refugee crisis, it does - the problem in the article relates in part to immigration from the EU.

If they are not supposed to be here then, broadly and in the majority of cases, neither were they supposed to be within the EU.

Why do people keep posting about Schegen influencing the irregular migration crisis? Did you ever travel in the EU before Schengen? I did there where only ever border posts on main road, most small roads had just a line, and the miles of border which is countryside had nothing.

EU countries do not have the resources to police effectively thousands of kilometres of internal borders.

The EU has tried to help with the crisis but irregular immigration is a national matter not an EU matter.

[stitched]

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

I agree this almost certainly did effect the referendum result.

Which says a lot about the voters in the referendum that something which has nothing to do with our membership of the EU effected how people voted.

I'll call you on that last comment. Whether or not the EU itself influences the outcomes - and IMHO, with Schengen and with a dysfunctional border policy and a abject lack of plan in dealing with the refugee crisis, it does - the problem in the article relates in part to immigration from the EU.

If they are not supposed to be here then, broadly and in the majority of cases, neither were they supposed to be within the EU.

Why do people keep posting about Schegen influencing the irregular migration crisis? Did you ever travel in the EU before Schengen? I did there where only ever border posts on main road, most small roads had just a line, and the miles of border which is countryside had nothing.

EU countries do not have the resources to police effectively thousands of kilometres of internal borders.

The EU has tried to help with the crisis but irregular immigration is a national matter not an EU matter.

How many of the inhabitants of the migrant camps aimed at the UK have the right to remain in the country they are in? Those countries decide not to remove the 'travellers' as they are fully aware that by ignoring them then they will become our problem.
Personally I would fill the tunnel back in and institute 100% searches of vehicles on this side of the channel with any person not having legal rights to disembark refused entry. It's an island FFS.

[Mrr T]

stitched said:

Personally I would fill the tunnel back in and institute 100% searches of vehicles on this side of the channel with any person not having legal rights to disembark refused entry. It's an island FFS.

So your idea is to fill in the Channel tunnel, and to have 100% checks in the UK on all cars and lorries, so effectively closing an important trade and passenger link with the rest of Europe. While caring out the checks in the UK which would allow anyone found to claim refugee status.

Do you have many "good" ideas like this?

[craigjm]

Let's all put out tin hats on and stock up our bunkers with tinned food shall we. We live in an international world, like it or not. Leaving the EU, filling in the channel tunnel or anything else is not going to solve the problem of illegal migration. The only thing that will solve the problem is to change what makes it attractive for people to risk their lives to try to get here. Unfortunately, if we do that then the UK isn't going to be the kind of place that most of us would want to live and we might be the ones hiding in lorries trying to escape.

To deal with issues like this you need more cooperation not less.

[Digga]

The UK needed greater flexibility to define which benefits immigrants we able to access than the EU allowed. Part of stemming the flow is a.) reducing the handouts and b.) being seen to be reducing the handouts. As others have said, there also needs to be visible consequences (ejection) for those entering illegally.

The majority of UK citizens, of all political persuasion, still want to maintain the levels of publicly-funded benefits - health, education, welfare - that we have become used to. The only way we can maintain this is by controlling who has access to it.

[craigjm]

Digga said:

The UK needed greater flexibility to define which benefits immigrants we able to access than the EU allowed. Part of stemming the flow is a.) reducing the handouts and b.) being seen to be reducing the handouts. As others have said, there also needs to be visible consequences (ejection) for those entering illegally.

How does any of that solve the issue of illegal immigration? Anyone who is here illegally doesnt get any handouts and if we eject them they will simply attempt to return. You could equalise the level of benefit that any migrant gets across the whole world and it would not stop the flow of people attempting to get to the UK

[Digga]

craigjm said:

How does any of that solve the issue of illegal immigration? Anyone who is here illegally doesnt get any handouts and if we eject them they will simply attempt to return. You could equalise the level of benefit that any migrant gets across the whole world and it would not stop the flow of people attempting to get to the UK

A lot of the illegal immigration is a result of the UK being perceived to be a light touch and a very lucrative place to be.

People here illegally but on false ID (another issue) may well attempt or even access parts of the welfare state, certainly, for example, the health service.

There are other costs. The significant cost of many of our police custody cells and a large amount of our police time being devoted to people who aren't even supposed to be here in the first place.

[craigjm]

Digga said:

There are other costs. The significant cost of many of our police custody cells and a large amount of our police time being devoted to people who aren't even supposed to be here in the first place.

Indeed, but what is the solution? Identify theft, fraud etc are rife but that doesn't mean that we should stop supporting those in genuine need. If they really want to make a start on dealing with the issue they should start with the low hanging fruit which is the EU immigrants that are here but are homeless and without work because even under freedom of movement that makes them illegal. There are groups of them in certain places in central London on open display. Same goes for the camps in France. A diplomatic solution is needed to close these down and make the French deal with their obligations under the UN convention.

Unfortunately Brexit will just make it harder to come to any European wide immigration policy that would be even for every country involved.

[AJS-]

craigjm said:

Unfortunately Brexit will just make it harder to come to any European wide immigration policy that would be even for every country involved.

Thank goodness for that, given the way that major EU countries have dealt with this problem. Or rather not dealt with it.

[paulrockliffe]

The recent statements by French president hopefuls are appeals to the public that won't be fulfilled, but sound good to the baying masses. Le Touquet happened out of common self-interest, it's not the French doing us a favour. Moving the border to Calais helps no one, the asylum seekers have no right to asylum in the UK by dint of their refusal to apply in France, they become economic migrants not asylum seekers. They go straight back to France, who can't then shrug their shoulders and pretend they're not there or that they're someone else's problem.

The French know this, Le Touquet means that the ferries and the tunnel remain open, French Lamb and Wine goes one way and UK tourist dollars the other.

[craigjm]

AJS- said:

Thank goodness for that, given the way that major EU countries have dealt with this problem. Or rather not dealt with it.

So the solution is? pull up the drawbridge, fortress UK and thank fk we are an island is it?

A lot of people forget that when we are talking about immigration we are not talking about numbers and costs and suchlike, we are talking about people. It is only by the luck of the draw that any of us were born here or in Europe, the US whatever. If you lived in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya etc. right now what would you be doing?

[Digga]

craigjm said:

A lot of people forget that when we are talking about immigration we are not talking about numbers and costs and suchlike, we are talking about people. It is only by the luck of the draw that any of us were born here or in Europe, the US whatever. If you lived in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya etc. right now what would you be doing?

Firstly, illegal immigrants are not refugees. Do not conflate the two. We have a long and proud history of helping and accommodating refugees (admittedly we've not been too good at it WRT to Syria, but that's another issue) and that should not change.

Secondly, there is a reason we in the developed Western world have certain living standard. Letting everyone come and have a crack at our lifestyle with erode that pretty quickly, as much as most immigrants are decent, hardworking individuals, there are limits to how fast infrastructure investment is able to keep up with population growth, as much as there are also limits to the numbers of non-English speaking or low skilled people our (or any developed) economy can support.

You can say the same about charity. In reality, we should all live a subsistence life and turn our pockets out to give every last scrap of spare change to the needy, but we don't. Or at least very few people do and certainly not you or I. We cannot help everyone, but furthermore, we cannot help everyone who wants our help.