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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Digga]

markcoznottz said:

craigjm said:

dandarez said:

Bit like the postal system, if we didn't know who they were, they couldn't prove who they were, had no documentation, we returned them to sender.

Simples!

Really? It's far from simples! When nobody has any documentation how do you prove the "afghan" infront of you is actually a Pakistani? Or a Somalian is actually a Kenyan? To be able to return someone to a country you need a really good level of proof that the country you are sending them to is where they are from.

Surely they will have to speak eventually, dna/ lingual test could narrow it down to a region.

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.

[Digga]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.