Illegal entry arrest stats

[del mar]

craigjm said:

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?

So you would solve it by doing what ?

[turbobloke]

craigjm said:

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.

Whatever it was that the profound truism 'people are people' was meant to do, it didn't do it.

Which UK visa application criteria does 'the luck of the draw' feature in?

If you can think of a succesful means of managing 'the luck of the draw' then be sure to let Camelot know as well as Theresa May.

The people we are talking about in a thread on illegal entry have no basis for being here.

[Mrr T]

del mar said:

So you would solve it by doing what ?

Unfortunately, there are very few things we can do.

We can withdraw from the 1956 Protocol to the UK convention on refugees.

We might tighten up the HRA to be clearer what the right to family life means.

Try and make dam sure brexit does not mean the French withdraw from the Le Touguet agreement.

[craigjm]

Digga said:

irstly, 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.

I am perfectly clear on the legal definitions of immigrants and refugees having worked for the UN and I am not confusing the two. The fact is that many refugees do not know the ins and outs of the 1951 Convention and 67 protocol aimed at protecting them. They do the same as economic migrants do when leaving and pay people smugglers to get them out generally. Once they arrive in the UK under the control of those people smugglers it is easy to become "another illegal economic migrant" unaware of the protection that you can avail.

This is how I would deal with the issue -

Asylum

We need an update to the 1951/67 legislation as the "nearest safe country" issue does not work and is far too much of a burden on countries near conflict zones like Turkey.

All signatories to the convention should be made to sign up to a resettlement programme where people granted refugee status are resettled in any signatory country once their status has been given on a quota basis so that the lure of coming to the UK is lessened

We should make much more use of limited leave to remain options rather than granting indefinite leave

All asylum seekers and those granted asylum should be kept under much closer supervision even during any leave to remain period. They should have the right to work and any support should be no more than the basic support you would get if you were British and unemployed etc.

There needs to be a much more robust removal of failed asylum seekers and those coming to the end of their leave to remain. These figures should be much more widely published and should be a key KPI for any government.

EU Migrants

In the spirit of freedom of movement they should be able to freely move here providing they meet the conditions required

Article 24 of the citizens rights directive, should, in my view, be removed and anyone living and working in another member state should not have access to the benefits of that state and therefore they should cover themselves through insurance and return home when they are no longer employed

There should be a visible crack down on dealing with any EU migrant that is homeless and living on the streets and they should be returned to their country of origin

There should be a change to the discrimination laws and you should be able to, as an employer, employ a British person who is suitably qualified for a job over an EU national without sparking a discrimination case

There has to be a much more robust removal of EU citizens that no longer meet the criteria to remain in the UK and again these figures should be published and it should be a key government KPI

illegal immigrants

As others have said we need to remove as much as possible the incentive to come here. We should be less sensitive about powers of the police to stop and search etc. and the police should be able to ask anyone for proof of residence in the UK without the fear of being branded racists.

Anyone who is found to be here illegally should either be a) deported as soon as possible if they are an overstayer of any kind or b) if they are from countries of conflict etc should be placed into the asylum process and fingerprinted etc before having their case reviewed

Everyone who is therefore removed from the UK would be either an overstayer, a failed asylum seeker, an asylum seeker no longer in need of protection or an EU national that no longer meets the conditions to be here. Anyone who is in any of these situations should be recorded prior to deportation and issued with an order banning them from returning to the UK. Any breach of that ban should lead to immediate deportation without consideration.

The people smugglers also need to be dealt with and the punishments should be severe and well publicised.

Finally, we need to deal with the image that the UK has around the world of it being "the land of milk and honey" and we should be active in the media around the world in showing the misery of the lives of lots of people that have managed to make it here and find that not to be the case. People risk their lives holding on to the Eurostar because we are seen as more generous than France for instance and we need to end that impression around the world.

Following a plan like the above would, in my view, make the UK a less attractive place for anyone to aspire to if they do not have a right to be here. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be a start.

However, we need to deal with the issues at source and that means dealing with the conflicts around the world and the issues that are making people want to move. That does not mean removing governments and trying to instill western style democracy, it means a concerted effort with other developed countries of the world to improve the lives of people in countries that generate lots of migration. We could do an awful lot of that by redistributing our aid budget away from countries that no longer are in a position of need.

Edited by craigjm on Tuesday 30th August 16:33

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

...It's not often I find myself agreeing with Vaz...

Eeew, I suggest a hot shower to wash off any slime.

[del mar]

craigjm - good post, I would say the first post from the left that actually offers a solution as opposed to criticising every other offer. (apologies if you are not left)

I think with Asylum there has to be some sort of matching of individual to new host country.

I like our average weather relaxed way of life and ability to drink alcohol. I would not be best please with being sent to Saudi Arabia - although noted very few muslim countries sign up to the UN Convention. A genuine refugee should be happy wherever he is sent - but we all know that doesn't work. You would also find that families and communities are split up.

Yes the countries nearby suffer the biggest burden, but they are also similar in so many ways, language, climate, food and religion, they also tend to have some influence/relationship over the country effected.

Somebody living in abject poverty and persecuted for his beliefs should not travel half way across the world to find a country with a good education and welfare system - nor should he be distributed to one. Should he find himself in a nearer country where he still lives in abject poverty, but is not persecuted for his beliefs then his life is significantly better and that is all he is entitled to.

Sending people home when their country has returned to safety, whilst may be part of the definition of refugee, is even harder. They know they are giving up what they think is a great life in a Western Country with education and welfare to go back to the old s*** hole that they left 3 years ago. These would be those that were granted temporary asylum not those that were declined outright. At the moment we cant return those who we have declined !

In trying to prove that the UK is not the land of milk and honey we will be competing with all Western Countries trying to paint the worst picture possible ! In 99% of the cases no matter what we do it will still be better than being an African Farmer in a country where it never rains.

Whenever you meet somebody who has just moved jobs and you say "how is it?" they never say cr*p I wish I had stayed put....

[AJS-]

craigjm said:

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?

One of the defining features of a functioning liberal democracy is that it has clear and transparent laws which are upheld consistently. We can't spread our good fortune in being born into such a country by arbitrarily suspending our immigration laws for a group of criminals because you feel sorry for them.

What would I be doing? Well I would like to think I would either be trying to sort out the horrible mess those countries have become, but if it got to a point where staying was too dangerous then I would go to the first safe place I can and assess my options from there. If I wanted to move to Britain and met the criteria for doing so I would go to a British embassy or consulate and do that.

What I would not be doing is loitering around Calais trying to hijack lorries to force myself onto the people of a country where I am not welcome.

When you talk about feral criminals and terrorists you are also talking about people. People I don't want here and people who have no right to be here.

[craigjm]

@del mar.... Thank you. I am not left, I would consider myself more of a centre right one nation Conservative in reality but first and foremost I am a pragmatist. I agree with your points, it is a big old mess that we can't sort out on our own

[dandarez]

Heard a ex-border immigration control guy today and his experiences in the 80s/90s with illegals (they've been trying to come here for an age).

He said some of the illegals tales to get into the UK would have made Nelson 'blink'.

Paraphrasing, it carried on something like this:

Asked how immigration control dealt with it then he said if we were suspicious we'd put them to one side.

How could you deal with that today, would you need a big room, considering the numbers?

We had the new facilities in place then to deal with it, but we never used them.

We didn't need to. Numbers are not a problem, it's a solution that's lacking today.

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!

[craigjm]

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.

[paulrockliffe]

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.

You don't. You tell the ferry company or the tunnel operator to return them to where they came from. You run the checks before passport control, like a the Airport. Have you noticed how few illegals get in by plane?

But that makes it the Ferry companies problem, which impacts on crossing times, puts up costs and causes people to fly to Spain instead of spending their money in France. Hence Le Touquet.

The Jungle has nothing to do with us, it's entirely the result of French and EU incompetence.

[markcoznottz]

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.

[craigjm]

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.

You might find this funny but when the Afghans first started coming over in 2002ish I was doing a project within the borders agency and the staff that processed asylum had one way of ascertaining whether someone was Afghan rather than lying and actually being Pakistani or similar. It consisted of a questionnaire that they were given to fill in and it included questions like....

How long does it take to get from Kabul to Khandahar on the train?
What is the name of the national game played with a dead goat?
What is the name of the traditional rice dish eaten on new years eve?

If they couldn't answer then they were refused for not being Afghan on suspicion of being Pakistani. Of course it did not take long for people to be coached in the answers and the standard female response was "I do not know as I never leave the house and I am not educated"

It is still not much more sophisticated now.

The problem is that the governments of the countries they are coming from dont really want them back so they will do all they can to frustrate the process also.

[craigjm]

paulrockliffe 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.

You don't. You tell the ferry company or the tunnel operator to return them to where they came from. You run the checks before passport control, like a the Airport. Have you noticed how few illegals get in by plane?

But that makes it the Ferry companies problem, which impacts on crossing times, puts up costs and causes people to fly to Spain instead of spending their money in France. Hence Le Touquet.

The Jungle has nothing to do with us, it's entirely the result of French and EU incompetence.

Run what checks? The reason few illegals get in by plane is because you cant sneak into the cargo hold of a plane as easily as you can a lorry. You can do all the checks you want in France and we do have teams that check lorries and immigration staff out there but it is far from easy to secure land ports as it is airports.

[FiF]

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.

[craigjm]

FiF said:

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.

and dont forget that is only failed asylum seekers never mind illegals.

[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.

[craigjm]

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?

[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?

[craigjm]

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