Illegal entry arrest stats

[Digga]

craigjm said:

Yes that is fair enough for those who wish to settle and certainly, in my view, if they wish to take citizenship

Clearly, with regard to refugees we cannot and should not be so picky.

[FiF]

Digga said:

craigjm said:

Digga said:

As an aside to this, there is considerable cost incurred to the already stretched Home Office budget each year for translation and interpretation. Another reason for clearly setting out linguistic requirements for entry PDQ.

What do you mean by "setting out linguistic requirements for entry"? are you suggesting that every person who travels to the UK has to be able to speak English?

NO, but every person who wants to settle here perhaps should either be able to speak it or otherwise automatically compelled to learn, otherwise even in manual roles (with H&S notices being a case in point) what 'use' are they going to be?

Problem is what level do you set, and how do you measure it, and furthermore enforcement.

For example it's typical for a university to set an entrance requirement of IELTS 6.5 for admission to study at Masters level or above. A score of 6 means "User has generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies, inappropriacies and misunderstandings. Can use and understand fairly complex language, particularly in familiar situations."

6.5 is a requirement, occasionally someone with a 6 will be admitted subject to taking a course. You can get students with a 6.5 pass where it is virtually impossible to communicate verbally on simple everyday matters, as for academic supervision sometimes have to fall back to speaking in their native language where possible, which frankly is very much sub optimal from all viewpoints.
link


Point is that if there can be such discrepancy between recorded score and real ability opens up questions about the integrity of the regime. We know there's corruption ongoing, and that's just academic tests, imagine the situation for general applicants.

[turbobloke]

FiF said:

Digga said:

craigjm said:

Digga said:

As an aside to this, there is considerable cost incurred to the already stretched Home Office budget each year for translation and interpretation. Another reason for clearly setting out linguistic requirements for entry PDQ.

What do you mean by "setting out linguistic requirements for entry"? are you suggesting that every person who travels to the UK has to be able to speak English?

NO, but every person who wants to settle here perhaps should either be able to speak it or otherwise automatically compelled to learn, otherwise even in manual roles (with H&S notices being a case in point) what 'use' are they going to be?

Problem is what level do you set, and how do you measure it, and furthermore enforcement.

If settlement refers to indefinite leave to remain in the UK, why not use one level lower than the Citizenship requirements? Namely B1 Low Intermediate rather than B1 Intermediate. HMG publishes details of approved test providers. That's the level and measurement sorted; as to enforcement, it would be simple - the Home Office would not issue an Indefinite Leave to Remain visa for the applicant's passport without proof of B1 LI. Often if not almost always there's a six-month stay on a fixed-term visa so plenty of time.

[Digga]

turbobloke said:

FiF said:

Digga said:

craigjm said:

Digga said:

As an aside to this, there is considerable cost incurred to the already stretched Home Office budget each year for translation and interpretation. Another reason for clearly setting out linguistic requirements for entry PDQ.

What do you mean by "setting out linguistic requirements for entry"? are you suggesting that every person who travels to the UK has to be able to speak English?

NO, but every person who wants to settle here perhaps should either be able to speak it or otherwise automatically compelled to learn, otherwise even in manual roles (with H&S notices being a case in point) what 'use' are they going to be?

Problem is what level do you set, and how do you measure it, and furthermore enforcement.

If settlement refers to indefinite leave to remain in the UK, why not use one level lower than the Citizenship requirements? Namely B1 Low Intermediate rather than B1 Intermediate. HMG publishes details of approved test providers. That's the level and measurement sorted; as to enforcement, it would be simple - the Home Office would not issue an Indefinite Leave to Remain visa for the applicant's passport without proof of B1 LI. Often if not almost always there's a six-month stay on a fixed-term visa so plenty of time.

I can see FiF's point about enforcement. For example, there has recently been a scandal regarding construction industry qualifications being 'gifted': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34575170

If there's a way to bribe or send your relative/friend in your stead, it will happen. One thing we do know is the developing world's general attitude to bribery, corruption and fair play.

[turbobloke]

Likewise but biometrics will eventually sort most impersonations either by prevention or detection.

Until then, while a degree of fraud will be present, it need not stop potental actions relatively easily taken - that would be excessively defeatist.

[Mrr T]

FiF said:

Cupramax said:

superlightr said:

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

This, definitely.

Well an asylum judge recently stated that of those refused asylum only 5-10% are ever removed. Not sure what that relevance is, but reckon it's an indication of how efficient the relevant agency is, or rather isn't.

Its easy for the DW to moan about failing to remove those have been refused refugee status. However, the reality is more complex. Most failed asylum seekers will have destroyed their passport before claiming asylum. To be able to deport them you must get their country of origin to agree to accept them. This is hard to do. There was a program on TV a few weeks ago. In it, a Pakistani man (I think), had entered illegally and wanted to go back as he could not get work. He had turned himself into the BA because he had lost (maybe) his passport. The border agency had been trying for several months to get the Pakistani authorities to issue a new passport even with the full co-operation of the immigrant. I am not saying the BA is perfect its just deporting people is hard.

[Digga]

Mrr T said:

I am not saying the BA is perfect its just deporting people is hard.

Good point. I guess, as part of the overall political solution, the governments of these nations will need to be prevailed upon to make this process easier. There is bound to be a quid pro quo.

[Mrr T]

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

I am not saying the BA is perfect its just deporting people is hard.

Good point. I guess, as part of the overall political solution, the governments of these nations will need to be prevailed upon to make this process easier. There is bound to be a quid pro quo.

We can try but most of the countries we are looking to deport failed asylum seekers to are third world. Few will have computer based systems most of the records, of birth, death, issuance of passport will still be paper based.