Why can’t the Border Agency sort out its backlog?

 

              Mr Vaz and the Home Affairs Committee have issued a timely reminder of the bulging in tray of the Border Agency. They have added up the Agency’s own figures and reckon over 250,000 illegal immigrants are still in the country.

             The BBC has revealed the squalid conditions some illegal migrants live in, in sheds and lean to structures  illegally erected and inhabited in back gardens. They seek irregular cash based work. They feel let down by the border  buster gangs who charged them for their transit and entry to the UK.

           Now we hear that the socialist French President is going to allow Sangatte to start up all over again, allowing more illegals to find their way from France to the UK.

           The government has stated clearly its intention to clamp down on illegal immigration. It has said the Commitee has highlighted serious problems which it  is already tackling. Many would like to see faster progress.

            The first thing is to stop the new flow of illegals. Why doesn’t the Border Agency make it clear that no-one will be admitted without proper papers? It needs to end the practice of illegal migrants from safe countries turning up without papers and claiming asylum.  All new entrants, including asylum seekers, can and should have a passport or other document making clear where they were born and where they are a citizen. Anyone travelling without papers should be prevented from getting on the plane at the place of departure. Anyone destroying documents on the plane  should be sent back by the next flight to where they came from.  If there are putative problems with the ECJ or the ECHR the UK Parliament shoud legislate to make clear in UK law the rule of needing papers applies regardless. UK citizens flying to the USA have to show a visa or ESTA  visa waiver before being allowed on the plane.

           All people with papers seeking entry to the UK should be advised to seek pre-clearance in the country where they currently live. Asylum seekers from a list of badly governed  countries would  be exempted from such a requirement if it was dangerous for them to comply. Most entrants should arrive in the UK knowing they could enter, and the task of the Border Agency would be simplified and speeded up. Requirements for visitors and business travellers who are clearly coming for a short stay should be much easier than requirements for people wanting to settle and work here. It is quite easy to enter the US as a tourist or business person, but they do require your US contact address and  want to know when and how you are going home.

          The Agency should also start to tackle its backlog more rapidly. It should know how to contact all the people it has allowed short term entry and should ask them to leave in accordance with their agreed permission. Criminals should also be well known to the authorities and should be removed as soon  as possible.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

152 Comments

  1. Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    Well said, Mr Redwood. These are all good suggestions and some have been made before. Yet for a number of years now governments have obviously been incapable of implementing any measures that deal properly with this issue. Why is this? Is it lack of political will to overturn EC rules? Is it incompetent government ministers? Is it to do with so-called ‘Human Rights’? Is the Border Agency incompetent? Is it civil servants not doing what they are told to do? Just why are we not able to get on top of this?

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:45 am | Permalink

      All things come back to the influence of the EU/ECHR.
      Either our politicians in positions of power are in agreement with the EU or they fear the fines that would come with standing up to the EU.
      We are no longer governed by UK politicians.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:12 am | Permalink

      You just need to watch the UK Borderforce programme on teleision to see the inadequacies of the system – no paperwork so they let them go and ask them to report to the “office” on a day – never to be seen again!

      Add to that, illegals get caught in the back of a lorry and are told to report to the local police station – never to be seen again!

      My solution – lock them all up until they can prove who they are and where they have come from.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

        Vangerova ,

        That UK Borderforce programme on television even looks like a fabrication – a wooden attempt at trying to convince us that they don’t just let everyone in .

        It’s only a matter of time before one of the actors is spotted on one of Pravda’s programs like Casualty or East Enders .

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        All you need now is lots of new detention centres to lock them all up for an indeterminate period…..something which is highly unlikely now. Prevention is better than the cure. Push the border abroad to avoid the HR legal entanglements….

        zorro

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

        Given that it costs more to keep a criminal in prison for a year than to keep them in the Ritz Locking up all illegal immigrants indefinitely will be very expensive.

        • Posted July 25, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

          Of course it will, I was being ironic…..hence my plea to stop the issue at source wherever possible

          zorro

  2. Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    I fear there’s a fatal flaw in your plan:

    ‘If there are putative problems with the ECJ or the ECHR the UK Parliament shoud legislate to make clear in UK law the rule of needing papers applies regardless’

    All you’ve outlined is simple common sense. Or if we want to see how this operates in practice just go to any ‘non-advanced’ economy. Anyone seeking a fine example of this should search out a documentary (and there are many) comparing Mexican and USA immigration law, procedures, etc. and then imagine if we or the USA were to act like that. And I’m not picking on Mexico as a bad case, only because of the contrast with their neighbours, but most countries are protective of their citizenry.

    Our government doesn’t give a damn about us. Off to pay the cleaner now. How shall I do it? Hmmmm….

  3. Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    John,
    I think we all know by now that nothing will ever happen to change this situation and it’s going to get worse.
    Booker is usually pretty good on the real story.
    I hope it is not bad form to provide the following link:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177974/The-REAL-migrant-scandal-Politicians-pretend-control-borders–truth-Brussels-wont-let-us.html

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:31 am | Permalink

      Indeed “Politicians still pretend we control our borders – when the truth is Brussels won’t let us” as Booker says on your link.

      Politicians say one thing and do another, in almost every area, currently. Cameron claims, for example, to be pro business, cutting regulation, clamping down on illegal immigration. and having cut the deficit by 25% for example. There is no truth in any of it at all.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        I see that another treasury government dope (after Mr “morally repugnant” Osborne) David Gauke has said: “Getting a discount with your plumber by paying cash in hand is something that is a big cost to the Revenue and means others have to pay more in tax. “I think it is morally wrong”.

        Well that is easy for him to say with – large tax free pay offs for failed resigning ministers, special tax concessions for his “expenses” £100 a day subsidy in the HoC restaurants, a good salary and the best pension going.

        But if he had to fix a leak in his house and the only way he could afford it was to pay for it in cash what would he do? Just let it leak and bring the ceiling down I assume?

        What is morally repugnant is his government approach of over tax, over borrow and piss down the drain as everyone can see very clearly.

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:58 am | Permalink

          If the customer asks for a discount for cash on the assumption that the tradesman will avoid VAT, income tax or national insurance, is that customer not commiting a criminal offence by trying to persuade another to carry out an illegal act?

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 11:20 am | Permalink

            Is a high street store cheating the goverment out of legitimate revenue by lowering prices by 60 per cent in a sale?…….I tbink not! The madness of tax stifling economic activity!

            Zorro

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 11:21 am | Permalink

            Assume makes an ass of u and me…..

            Zorro

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

            Yes.

            As I understand from the CPS website, until October 1st 2008 it was a matter of common law that even in the absence of any relevant statutory provision it was always a crime to assist or encourage or incite a crime, now it is covered by the Serious Crime Act 2007:

            http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/inchoate_offences/#P20_588

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

            Denis, (from your link)

            ‘The prosecution must show that the person accused of incitement intended or believed that the person incited would, if acted as incited to do so, do so with the mens rea appropriate to the offence.’…….That will be fun to prove in court.

            zorro

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink

          So the government are going to teach us about morality??

          First cast out the beam out of thine own eye…

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

            This is another of their world class clangers inviting the press to show politicians as hypocrites. Get your popcorn!

            Zorro

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

          Lifelogic

          Mr David Gaulke who made the above comment about cash payments, it would seem according to reports in the Daily Mail this morning.

          Put through the Stamp duty amount of £8,550 when he purchased his last house (2006/2007) through on his Parliamentary expenses.

          This was highlighted, investigated, he was cleared of any wrong doing, and was not asked to pay anything back.

          Thus you, me, and every other taxpayer funded the purchase of his house, perhaps this is why stamp duty had to be increased at the last budget for more expensive properties.

          Morally repugnant ?

          Pot calling the kettle black !

          Those who dish the dirt should make sure they are squeeky clean before they make comment.

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

            What a foolish man…..a politician lecturing about morality is like Jack the Ripper moralising about violence against loose women……..

            Zorro

          • Posted July 25, 2012 at 11:22 am | Permalink

            Indeed soon we will be expected to accept David Laws back after his local difficulties, no prosecution yet for some reason strange reason.

            etc etc

            Reply: People in the UK including MPs are innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

          • Posted July 25, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

            JR: “People in the UK including MPs are innocent unless and until proven guilty in court. ”

            But it is odd who MPs unless they are particularly bovine, like that fellow (xxx) who actually admitted the theft live on Television, it is odd that the number of prosecutions can be counted on the fingers of two hands.

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

          I notice that the people who are telling us not to avoid tax are themselves involved in tax avoidance, not least the BBC.

          I tried searching “BBC tax avoidance” on the BBC website. I got reports about bankers, plumbers and cleaners, but not the BBC. No surprises there.

          Even Exchequer Secretary David Gauke has been exposed as a hypocrite on order-order.com, after his comments about cash transactions with tradesmen.

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

            Bob: “Even Exchequer Secretary David Gauke has been exposed as a hypocrite on order-order.com”

            Why am I not surprised.

            We are no longer led by donkeys but (worse-ed).

          • Posted July 25, 2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink

            Nearly 500 BBC staff paid through service companies, was it not. I cannot think this was all done for reasons other than tax avoidance!

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

          David Gauke: “Getting a discount with your plumber by paying cash in hand is something that is a big cost to the Revenue and means others have to pay more in tax. I think it is morally wrong”.

          I’d like Mr Redwood when he next has an opportunity to tell Mr Gauke, to shut up!

          This man has just exposed himself to anyone who wants to inspect the minutiae of his expense claims.

          No doubt with a little digging he will turn out to be the usual repulsive career shyster.

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

            “This man has just exposed himself to anyone who wants to inspect the minutiae of his expense claims.”

            Well, what do you know. Apparently David Gauke, is married to a tax-avoidance lawyer, he has claimed back £11k in stamp duty on his second home (HT Guido) while also clocking up £120k a year in expenses including travel to his constituency from Westminster.”

            Time for a very public resignation.

            This is the stuff the Tory party is made of these days.

            Reply: Most of Mr Gauke’s expenses would be staff costs for running his Parliamentary office. £120,000 a year would be below the average charged by MPs. Claiming Stamp duty on purchase was part of the second home scheme when Mr Gauke claimed it, but is no longer. Now MPs are required to rent instead, which often works out dearer.

          • Posted July 25, 2012 at 11:28 am | Permalink

            He never the less should resign or shut up rather like Prince Charles and the quack green agenda – for all but himself of course.

          • Posted July 25, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

            JR: “Claiming Stamp duty on purchase was part of the second home scheme when Mr Gauke claimed it, ”

            That is hardly the issue, his attempts to avoid paying tax is costing the exchequer money that it will have to claim from other tax payers now. [Here endeth the gospel according to Gauke].

            That is morally reprehensible!

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

          Discounts for cash reflect the extra cost and risk of payment by other means. Cheques may bounce: electronic payments are expensive for small scale transactors. These other forms of payment take time to clear, whereas cash is instantly available. Credit transactions have extra risks, justifying cash discounts. It is far from all about tax avoidance: it’s about avoiding bank fees, risk of compromise of credit cards and creating certainty for both sides.

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

            Mark: “Discounts for cash reflect the extra cost and risk of payment by other means”

            Has no one else drawn the very obvious conclusion from the RBS/Nat West computer problems of last month, that there ain’t anything quite as good as cash in the hand.

            Except possibly gold or Silver in the hand.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:24 am | Permalink

      This article sums up the situation precisely. There is also a lady posting in response from Austria who explains as an ex pat that the system here encourages freeloaders from everywhere in the world to come and use our benefits and public services for free.
      My wife is currently undergoing treatment for nerve damage to her arm on the NHS. We have visited many outpatient centres as a consequence. I have regularly seen with my own eyes that no foreign people are ever challenged as to their rights to treatment here. All afraid of Nulabours politically correct laws and manipulation. Everyone in public service is scared of the “race” card. No wonder we’re all starting to avoid tax as the Government just gives it away to foreign causes like the EU (£10 billion), foreign aid (another (£10 billion), billions in educating foreign children, health care and housing. State benefits and bring your family over – all for free. Its deliberate EU policy to stop any idea of a nation state so we can be a big melting pot of EU citizens. Thats why the current mainstream parties are no longer believable and sinking as everyone wakes up to reality.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

        @Timaction

        How did you get that comment past moderation?

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

          Nothing contrary to factual experience in that comment I would think…..

          Zorro

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

            @zorro

            That doesn’t usually trump political correctness.

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

          This is not rude but factual. I actually read a poster behind one of the counter staff at an out patient centre stating about entitlement to care, but no one challenged the right to treatment or costs. I believe Mr Redwood could ask the Health Minister how much is collected by our health services for treatments given to foreign people. I cannot remember the figures but they are profound as the NHS has no system to charge! However, the Government charges us through taxation! Our public services have systemic failure. Other countries don’t have this problem.

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

            I know this for a fact.
            I went the the dispensary at Guys and St. Thomas’ with a prescription from a private consultant. They kept me waiting for 3 hours because they couldn’t work out what I needed to pay!

            We need to move to the French system pronto where the patient pays the bill and then reclaims 75% from the government.
            The problem of health tourism would be solved instantly.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        Its deliberate EU policy to stop any idea of a nation state so we can be a big melting pot of EU citizens.

        If this is the fault of the EU then why doesn’t any other EU country have this problem? More likely this is the fault of Parliament, not the EU.

        • Posted July 25, 2012 at 8:35 am | Permalink

          They do. Virtually all EU nations have significant anti-immigration political movements. Some have extremist parties elected to their parliaments. The French national front polled 19%. Thanks for coming on here to confirm the ignorance of lefties.

      • Posted July 26, 2012 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

        GPs are instructed by their union not to question anybody on their entitlement to NHS treatment. This written information was shown to me by a friend who is a GP.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      Derek,

      Thanks for the link.

      The zeal with which European law has been applied within this country leads me to a slightly different conclusion to Mr Booker.

      Immigration was becoming a worrying issue under the Major administration after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. The effects were almost instantaneous in London at the time.

      The impetus to desolve Britain did not come from without and it certainly didn’t come only from New Labour.

      The UKBA is made in the image of our own ruling elite, not that of Europe.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        It seems to me that to vote mainstream always results in a mandate for more of the same.

        An acceleration of the same in the case of a Cameron government.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

        The UK is not under any obligation to pay benefit to non-British citizens , whether EU or non-EU .

        The UK is only obliged to allow EU visitors to stay whilst they are capable of looking after themselves financially .

        The limit of our charity should be a one way ticket back to where they came from .

        Anyone know why the UK goes beyond EU requirements bending over backwards to welcome broke visitors ?

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

          I think from memory that it is something to do with the National Assistance Act 1948 and some relevant case law which means that a local authority effectively becomes duty bound to provide for the ‘destitute’ within their jurisdiction…..

          Zorro

  4. Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    Excellent suggestion. That is why it won’t happen. LibDems and Liebour would oppose this. Liebour relies on immigrant votes and they allowed mass uncontrolled immigration.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink

      It is blindingly obvious that the wretched EU wants the idea of borders confined to history. Mr Swift, I wish you well but you made two mistakes in your comment, viz 1) You used the word “immigrant”, but there is no such thing any more–“migrant” sounds much less concerning and net migration is of course smaller so naturally its use is encouraged by the PC brigade 2) Labour (all the way back to Kinnock) didn’t just “allow” they encouraged and facilitated immigration because they assumed immigrants would support them. Though this was probably true, the opinions of the indigenous population – big surprise apparently – were ignored. Let’s hope they never forgive Labour. Though I believe everything Labour does and says is wrong Milliband does seem to have a glimmer of integrity which I have not been able to detect in Cameron so although a former “Truebluechap” I am not sure whether I dislike Labour or the Conservatives more these days. I do know it would be a wonderful thing if UKIP’s votes, presently built up behind a frustrated dam, were to be unleashed and I am resolved to do my little bit to help.

  5. Posted July 24, 2012 at 6:09 am | Permalink

    I believe the term is “no brainer”. Shouldn’t Keith Vaz’s committee actually find the weak link rather than pointing the finger at the Borders Agency in general. It is quite conceivable that the Borders Agency is performing within the guidelines it is given. If so, it is up to the shower in Westminster to put it right and to introduce clear, well defined, unequivocal legislation rather than the patch on patch rules that exist.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:16 am | Permalink

      Yep, a few more laws should fix everything.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:56 am | Permalink

      They have to work according to the law…..and sometimes the law can be an ass.

      zorro

  6. Posted July 24, 2012 at 6:18 am | Permalink

    Because they are a government agency and have no appropriate mechanism to end their existence in the event of failure (as say bankruptcy for a failing company). Thus they become as efficient as your local council.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:14 am | Permalink

      We could let G4S do it instead. What mechanism do they have to end their existance?

      Getting back to the point though. John’s suggestions seem sensible to me. It isn’t working as it stands.

      The French president may be socialist, but he ain’t daft.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:03 am | Permalink

        When GS4 fail to meet targets it gets less money, fewer customers, has to downsize or go out of existence. That is the ‘mechanism’ for private companies. If GS4 were a public sector it could under perform, fail and have customers forced to use it regardless – that is the difference.

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink

          Just as well it is not under performing at the moment eh…..?

          Zorro

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

            Which is surely the point, can you see them getting another large government contract or organisations thinking GS4 are the go to people right now… they will lose money and market share as befits a company that does not perform.

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

            Gewyne, this company has £600 million pounds worth of contracts with the Home Office within government, and is bidding for prison contracts even now following their unique contribution to Olympic security…….We shall see…..Perhaps, I am being cynical, (goes on to mention a former Minister with no substance to allegations-ed)

            Zorro

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

          It now looks that out of the 23,500 security staff, 18,200 will be military, and some more police and there will be about 4,500 G4S staff…….so at £284 million pounds for the contract we have 4,500 G4S staff which is about £60,000 per staff member (£8.50 p/h) for less than 2 months work……marvellous value these private sector security contracts aren’t they?

          zorro

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

        If enough people see G4S for what it is, then no more customers, no more G4S.

        Did you honestly not understand that?

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

          Sorry I deleted a chunk of that accidentally, it should read

          “If enough people see G4S for….

          a failing company, and if that is

          …..what it is

        • Posted July 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

          Think I got it thanks.

          They will rename themselves and carry on. The government (whatever sort) already know their track record and use them anyway in an attempt to save some money (or perhaps because they’re mates)!

          Is this the same ‘mechanism’ applied to banks and utility company monopolies?

          • Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

            Then perhaps the problem is the existence of government. Welcome to anarcho-capitalism.

  7. Posted July 24, 2012 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    Quite so. Why does a frequently dull and miserable island on the north west edge of Europe become the chosen destination of so many who must pass through some pleasant places en route?

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      @Alte Fritz

      Could it be because they don’t make the tea properly in those other places?

  8. Posted July 24, 2012 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Immigration is the same as the HRA and the EU and the host of other pre election promises which your government shows no sign of addressing. This is one reason why you are doomed at the next election and thousands are defecting to UKIP. (Me included).
    I heard this morning one of the junior ministers saying it was morally wrong to avoid tax by paying cash for services. This shows just how stupid our rulers are. What is morally wrong is me working and you taking the money to give to Europe and in overseas aid. What is morally wrong is politician with their noses in the trough and using our future taxes to bail out th PIGIS.
    When your in opposition at the next election you will have time to ponder these words.

  9. Posted July 24, 2012 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    These comments are all united in sentiment.
    They are also common sense.

    What have I got in common with (some of the people entering-ed) How can they possibly become British?

    Yet even to write (about specified groups-ed) is racist.

    We have gone as mad as the Romans of the 5th century a.d. I always wondered why the roman Empire fell.
    Now I know.

  10. Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Let there be more open debate. Demands for action must and will intensify. But there is nothing much new about this, the ordinary person has been wanting this for years. but we’ve been lectured and accused of racism by polititians and the media, particularly the BBC, who churn out endless hours of propaganda on the subject. There is enormous frustration that however much we, the people of England, and let’s face it it is England that bears the brunt of the numbers, express our views, nothing of any consequence is done and we are lectured for our affrontery. On Jeff Randall’s show on Sky last evening he referred to towns and cities which are clearly full of people who shouldn’t be here. I can’t say I have any sympathy that they feel ‘let down’ by the ‘border buster gangs’ – if you you mean criminals, why don’t you say it? – who got them in. A strange thing to say anyway. Nothing much is done about getting rid of them, hence the 275,000 backlog. And even if they claim not to have have papers, it is not beyond the wit of man to work out where they came from, given the will to try. My guess is if they were about to be put on a plane to the wrong country, they’d soon say where they really came from. And if I may sink to the personal, I do wish you would ‘beef up’, your language more often, so we can be convinced of what you say. I referred to ‘border buster gangs’ above. Another case is ‘All people ….. seeking entry to the UK should be advised…’. They, and the country’s authorities, should be ‘told’ and in no uncertain terms. And in that same paragraph is the big hole in your stance. There will be a list of countries as long as your arm that could be included here, ‘badly governed’ – what does that mean anyway? and any sob story will be listened to. And this of course means ‘no change’.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

      Hey John……’border buster gangs’ indeed. These are organised crime gangs, assorted ne’er do wells and miscreants of the highest order who are subject to a term of imprisonment of up to 14 years on conviction of ‘facilitation’……http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/human_trafficking_and_smuggling/

      zorro

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

      My guess is if they were about to be put on a plane to the wrong country, they’d soon say where they really came from.

      This won’t work because we have to prove which country they came or the other country can refuse to accept them. Under International law you can’t just dump people you don’t like into countries you don’t like.

  11. Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    All commonsense suggestions John, so why has nothing been done ?

    Yet another Government Department failure, never mind the Pensions and pay offs will be good.

    As for the 250,000 illegals, how did they manage to get to this figure given that no one knows who these people are, where they are, how they came to be here, and did not count them in, or were even aware as to how they got in..

    I suggest the 250,000 number for illegals is an absolute guess, if anything like Labours calculations of a few years ago, you can multipy that by at least 4 or more.

    The simple solution for those who present themselves as refugees, without papers etc.
    Do not hold them pending investigation, immediately return them from where they came on the very next flight or boat.

    I cannot get on a plane or boat without showing my passport, how come they do ?

    Thought refugees had to claim status in the first port (country) of safety from where they were fleeing, if so, so how come many are even allowed in, given we do not border any Country from which they are fleeing.

    Ah yes, they claim in another EU Country, then come here under freedom of movement.

    Or

    Is it that the Border Agency is actually working in exposing these people, but then it is taken out of their hands when they detain these people, and they then go into another Government system/process and are lost forever..

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      These are known cases….don’t think about the inknown illegals!!

      zorro

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

      The simple solution for those who present themselves as refugees, without papers etc. Do not hold them pending investigation, immediately return them from where they came on the very next flight or boat.

      If they don’t have any papers how are we going to figure out where they’re from? You do realise that if people don’t have any papers this makes it very difficult to figure out which country they’re originally from. It can be difficult just to figure out which country they travelled through to get to the UK.

      • Posted July 25, 2012 at 8:36 am | Permalink

        Unanime5

        We know where the boat or plane came from !

        I would suggest passengers got aboard at the same location !

        So its simple, return them immediately from where they came.

        • Posted July 25, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

          So you’re assuming that the person is going to be truthful about where they got on the plane / boat, which may have made many stops on route to the UK.

          Also why are you assuming that we’ll know which boat or plane they came from? Unless you arrest them getting off the plane or boat they can very easily lie about where they came from.

          reply: Yes, they should have their papers checked on arrival.

          • Posted July 25, 2012 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

            Reply to reply – They can only be checked on arrival if they have documents – Apparently, a lot of people deliberately destroy their documents on planes or before arriving at the controls and then state that they have no documents to avoid identification or subsequent removal. They also may claim to be nationalities which they might not really be to the same end…..

            zorro

      • Posted July 25, 2012 at 8:41 am | Permalink

        It easy. Every migrant that arrives without papers or ID, the transporter, i.e. the airline or train/coach operator, should be fined heavily. These businesses would soon ensure that all passengers have the correct documents to enter the UK and if they destroy them on route, the business would have taken copies.

        • Posted July 25, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

          The most likely outcome of this idea is that airline or train/coach operators refuse to transport anyone to the UK. I doubt this will be good for the UK.

          Also what happens if people sneak aboard a lorry? Is the Government going to fine every lorry driver?

          • Posted July 25, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

            The lorry driver has to ensure that they have a reasonable excuse for a stowaway to be on board or they can be heavily fined and charged. Also, if airlines do not have an exception/approved security, they will be fined if an undocumented passenger can be linked to their flight.

            zorro

  12. Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    Britain is no longer a proper country anymore. They even allow violent criminals in unchecked and free to establish gangs here.

    Britain has been gifted to the third world in a fit of largesse by a Leftist elite which self flagellates over the crimes of Empire. Except it doesn’t self flagellate. It uses its own working class as whipping boys and makes them pay instead.

    So when is someone going to stand up for us and thank us for not voting BNP ? Instead we stand accused of endemic racism and the Tory party lets them do it – the ECHR and the ECJ isn’t the problem. They suit the general political agenda perfectly.

  13. Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    I recall a little while ago a study where an outside organisation was used to trace these people with unknown address and IIRC found nearly all of them in a matter of weeks in the sample they were given. It’s time to accept public sector workers don’t work and sufficient of them don’t care to do real harm. So let’s wind them down and have a smaller outfit overseeing private sector providers

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:27 am | Permalink

      It is easy to find them using credit checks. The UKBA can do that if the government stops getting rid of staff….notice that the private company didn’t take on the task of removing them!!

      zorro

  14. Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    Imagine Frank Bruno with one hand tied behind his back, one leg in a cast and a patch over one eye fight Muhammad Ali at his peak, and that is what UKBA is up against. Completelt risk averse politicians breathing down their necks, forensic analysis/audit by a myriad of organisations (a bit of a curate’s egg that one)……

    The problems are eternal and like the poor will always be with us – lack of doumentation to remove people, not enough detention space, legal problems in trying to remove peole once they are here, and more recently, getting rid of the most experienced staff…..

    They know have staff from other overnment departments manning the borders with a few days training, and unable to do very much at all. It’s all quite potty…..Of course, the government wasted two years salary paying off people to go to ‘save money’ and is now scrabbling around trying to find them and paying ridiculous amounts of money to convince them to come back and help…..they still want to cut more staff in the face of this inability to cope. A government’s prime duty id to defend the country, defend the borders, and establish and maintain the rule of law……doing well aren’t they?

    Nearly 100,000 of the new 250,000 figures are the remnant of those left over from the 450,000 amnesty of which only a tiny percentage were ever removed. The new backlog consists of different components and the report is an interesting read. The Home Affairs Select Committee are doing a reasonable job holding the government and Home Office to account…..http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news/120723-ukba-rpt-published/

    I seem to recall saying on a previous blog that the French would have a sting in their tails after the election and cause us issues with a new Sangatte. The French police are no longer able to detain people they suspect are in France with forged documents, so that will shuffle the problem nicely on to the UK…….http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9410955/Fears-of-new-Sangatte-as-French-propose-law-change-on-arresting-illegal-immigrants.html

    ‘The first thing is to stop the new flow of illegals. Why doesn’t the Border Agency make it clear that no-one will be admitted without proper papers?’…..John, this is easier said than done. The ‘Dublin Agreements’ are supposed to ensure that asylum seekers claim in the first EU country but it is a Swiss cheese and the UK can no longer do this with regards to Greece….http://www.unhcr.org.uk/resources/monthly-updates/january-2012-update/return-of-asylum-seekers-to-greece-found-to-be-unlawful.html

    ‘Anyone travelling without papers should be prevented from getting on the plane at the place of departure’….This is something that the UKBA does quite well in that it stops undocumented traevellers from getting on planes but a lot of the other issues you mention in that paragraph are complicated by international agreement and the Human Rights Act.

    ‘Asylum seekers from a list of badly governed countries would be exempted from such a requirement if it was dangerous for them to comply.’…….Sounds OK, but everyone would claim to come from that country as has often happened in the past. There are so many points of departure from airports around the world that is impossible to cover them all and you have to rely on airline staff and their security too identify documents. Having said that airlines are fined money if they allow people on planes without documents, though there are some exemptions.

    ‘The Agency should also start to tackle its backlog more rapidly. It should know how to contact all the people it has allowed short term entry and should ask them to leave in accordance with their agreed permission.’……..How are they going to do this work and with who if they are having to beg, borrow, bribe to man desks at airports now?

    zorro

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:52 am | Permalink

      Excuse the spelling, one can get quite worked up about this…..

      zorro

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 11:20 am | Permalink

      If you leave a jar of jam on the garden table and forget to replace the lid what do you expect will happen?

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

        Depends on the country and the time of year. In winter in Russia it will get covered in snow.

        • Posted July 25, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

          @uanime5

          Deliberately missing the point as usual.

  15. Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Your party promised to reduce immigration to ” tens of thousands a year, instead of the hundreds of thousands a year under Labour.” Look at the statistics and nothing has changed. There is no chance of that pledge being kept. Given that, it is no real surprise that “over 250,000 illegal immigrants are still in the country”. Incidentally, how do we know how many there are if they are here illegally? There is clearly no determination on the part of the government to deal with any of this. Damian Green is immigration minister and massively unimpressive but probably regarded as ideal for the purposes of his political bosses. After years of denigrating those who raised immigration as an issue, senior politicians now play a different game which is to talk tough and do nothing. Yet another example of how the three main parties offer no real choice to the electors.

  16. Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Interesting how government gets its figures, by extensive calculation, census, housing figures, school entrants, council tax bills, loging people in and out of the Country, National insurance numbers, tax returns, etc etc..

    More than a decade ago it was reported that Slough worked out exactly how much its poulation had grown, given that it did not believe official figures at the time, which it thought underestimated the situation.

    It got its answer from the local sewerage treatment works, very simple, it measured the amount of human waste it was treating from one year to the next.
    A 20% increase in human waste must, as near as dam it, equal a 20% increase in the population, in the area where the treatment works was fed by foul drainage .

    So, So Simple. Better than any census, and at no cost, save for using a calculator for 10mins.!!!!!!

    Why does this method not go Nationwide ?.

    Yes, yes I know how the headlines would read “Government relies upon C..P figures”

    But the simple methods are often the most reliable.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      These ‘crap’ figures are the most accurate because they are the most natural…..Tesco also did a survey in 2007/8 bwhich estimated from our consumption of food that the total living in the UK was close to 78 million……

      zorro

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      I liked your “as near as dam(n) it”!

      • Posted July 25, 2012 at 8:39 am | Permalink

        Leslie

        Yes, solid figures in which you could trust.

  17. Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    Deep breath…….I see that we now have a Mr Mini Me ‘Morally Repugnant’ who says that we are the dreaded words if we pay people in cash and do not force contractors under pain of death to register their VAT…..Thank God all the big companies like Vodafone pay all their taxes and do not benefit from any deals courtesy of HMRC….Thank God all the banks can survive without bailouts, and we do not have tp pay masses out in benefits to the idle feckless…….Are these politicians terminally dim? Can they not see that they should be frying some other fish? Oh no, let’s milk the cow more, and make the slaves work harder on the plantation. The slave master needs more money to spread his largesse….

    Not content with taxing well over half of what you earn or spend, they still come asking for more or bringing on the guilt trip……I have a radical idea, why do they not spend less by abolishing a great number of themselves and not do as much, as a lot of time they are busybodies causing more harm or good……

    But then I am evil thinking that aren’t I?……..and so are you lot too reading this and you too John by association and entrancing us with your ‘sensible’ views in general…….If we don’t pay more taxes, who will bail out the banks in future? Who will bail out the PIGIS? Who will pay for all the structural investment to cope with massive immigration? Who pay for all the equality and diversity coordinators?…….YES, WHO WILL COORDINATE OUR DIVERSITY? We need to know now!

    zorro

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      Zorro

      The Mini Minister not understand that high taxes are the cause.

      When I ran my own Construction Company, for years I lobbied (through the Federation of Master Builders) Parliament for years, with regard to trying to reduce VAT on house repairs and improvement to no avail.

      For years we highlighted that the high rate of VAT was proving to be a huge disadvantage to legitimate construction Companies, when quoting for work against Companies or individuals who would accept alternative payment methods.

      Nothing was ever done, so many legitimate Company owners decided to get out of the business (I myself retired), or decided to compete in a similar manner (fight fire with fire) in order to survive.

      Thus we now have a situation where the alternative economy is growing, tax take is falling, and legitimate companies are going out of business.

      Interesting to see it all happen from a distance now.

      I forecast this scenario many years ago, sadly it is all coming true, but the politicians are still blind to the fact of what is really happening.

      Once again they are 10 years behind what the population already know.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 11:36 am | Permalink

      @zorro

      “Are these politicians terminally dim? “

      I’m afraid so.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

        Like the people who voted for them!

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

      I agree this is absolutely an issue which should be tackled by those of us outside the political sphere. There are too many anomalies.

      VAT is basically a consumption tax. Spending money on doing up residential private property is consumption, but over a very long time frame and you never recoup the VAT. The corporate tax regime would write repairs down immediately, offset the VAT and write down improvements over a number of years. In return one would pay CGT on any profit made when a sale occurred. So why screw private individuals for spending their already taxed income and paying VAT to employ a tradesman versus the company tax regime which is far more favourable? If the tradesman were taken on as an employee no VAT would be payable on their work, only NI above a certain level of wage.

      Then we have VAT registered traders versus those who fall below threshold. You immediately become uncompetitive above a certain level of success or hard work.

      We have the anomaly that a tradesman working on their own house obviously pays no VAT or income tax on the work they do on their own house. Most folk are unable to work on their own behalf and save these taxes, so should builders etc pay tax on the work they do for themselves? Are they morally wrong for not doing so?

      Work-swapping – the chippy who does work for the plumber who works for the chippy. How is the value of this work proven and charged? Are favours done for relatives taxable? When does a gift of work become taxable?

      This is a minefield which politicians taking money from the public purse for duck-houses (not a repair in anybody’s book), house improvements and other fripperies would do well to avoid.

  18. Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    John

    You comment on the shanty town, back garden accomodation situation in some of our towns.

    A recent TV programme (about 6 months ago) also highlighted the situation in Slough, Southall, and Ealing, where this was happening on a seemingly large scale, although it is far more widespead than simply in these areas.

    The programme highlighted the fact that Councils had been aware of such accomodation for many years, but had only made one, yes one prosecution.

    Perhaps Local Authorities are not willing to take action because they may then have a legal obligation to house such people who they then make homeless by taking action.
    The law of uninteded consequenses.

    Thus we have situation where Planning wants rid of, the local population (other than those who get rent from such establishments) want rid of, environmantal health want rid of, but the people who live in such could then jump the housing list !

    Thus people who provide, and people who live in such, both gain, but the locals who do the right thing, lose out again.

    All sounds familiar, those who try to do the right thing, screwed again.

    Those who know the system and how it works, play the system and win again.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:51 am | Permalink

      As John said many of the people living in the garden sheds etc. are illegal immigrants. The local councils in areas like Ealing are well aware where these people are living. It should not be beyond the councils to get together with the Borders Agency (once the olympics are over) to remove these people from the country and rapidly impact the numbers of people involved.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 11:03 am | Permalink

        David

        But they do not do it, these shanty sheds and garages have been in position and use for years. !

        Most have been built with no planning or building regs. because they are at the bottom of the garden and are called sheds and storage units, but they are often connected to the foul drains which does come under building regs.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

        It shouldn’t be a problem either now that their staffing is going to be cut by 22%….http://fullfact.org/factchecks/is_the_uk_border_agency_set_to_loose_22_of_staff_by_2015-27635

        zorro

  19. Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    To: Mr J Redwood MP

    From: Dame Lucy Doolittle. Director for co-ordinating cross cutting initiatives and partnerships Whitehall SW1.

    CC: Dr Roy Spendlove

    Dear Mr Redwood, my department monitors your web site hourly for its compliance with some 46,000 Statutory Instruments. On this occasion you appear to be criticising government policy in a political, in-correct manner. References to the French President and suggestions that the ECJ; ECHR as “putative problem(s)”.

    I appreciate that you have PC edited comments to your site, which is appreciated, but there are some deficiencies which I need you to correct. You have knowingly not used the word “absolutely”. It is now compulsory to use this adverb in front of words like “correct”; “great”; “right” etc, at every possible occasion. You are also seriously deficient in the use of words like “sustainability” etc etc.

    Would you please refer (Google), “Politically Correct Terms & Phrases – Part 1” . I have asked Dr Roy Spendlove, to monitor your progress to the new enlightenment.

    Regards.

    Dear Dame Lucy,

    I stand corrected, I will try not to fall so far behind your high standards for circumlocution and avoidng the main issue.

    Yours sincerely

    John Redwood

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink

      Yes John, you need immediately to employ a website monitor who can ensure compliance with these wise regulatory requirements. Could you also please explain your due diligence with regards to the makeup of your contributors. You may be aware that you are required to comply with inclusiveness quotas. 50% of your contributors must be women and there must be a broad spectrum of ages/races/religions represented including a wide spectrum of political views with all contributors professing voting intentions in line with labour/liberal/green policy to ensure diversity of opinion. I would be glad if you could submit your daily statistics prompltly by cop each and every day. I am sure that you will support this initiative which is heartily supported by the Head of the Civil Service.

      Many thanks
      zorro

      P.S. I BET IN REALITY THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN SOON!

      • Posted July 25, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

        zorro: “Could you also please explain your due diligence with regards to the makeup of your contributors. ”

        Are there enough gay, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender contributing to this site?

        • Posted July 25, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

          I’m sure John will be posting his daily diversity statistics in due course. It will doubtless be one of his core strategic aims once he’s got round to writing a SMART objective so he can remember what he has to do to achieve it!

          zorro

  20. Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    Why are we still falling for this asylum idiocy? A fundamental principle of asylum-seeking is that the seeker must go to the NEAREST safe place. There are no dangerous countries bordering the UK so all seekers must have passed through (or over) a safe country to reach the UK – therefore their claim must be denied.

    Anyone arriving and claiming asylum should therefore be deported without further consideration. No appeals, no due process, just deport – on the same day as arrival ideally.

    (And just to show that I’m not a completely lunatic BNPer I will accept that if a person were already lawfully in the country, eg as a student, and due to a change in their homeland, eg regime change, it became unsafe for them to return home, then they might have a valid claim for asylum in the UK – the UK being the nearest safe place to where they happened to be.)

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

      You would definitely get loads of manufactured claims if you left in that caveat!

      zorro

  21. Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    I fully agree. You can’t get in any other country (except the EU) without the correct papers, why should we be the exception.
    The answer is to hold the airlines and shipping companies responsible for any illegals who arrive here without papers. We also need to restate the rule which says that anyone seeking asylum must do it in the nearest safe country to their country of origin. There is no way that someone from, say, Afghanistan, can claim everywhere was unsafe until they got here..

  22. Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    Treat the cause not the symptom. Illegal immigrants choose the UK because it is the softest and most generous country. That is the fault of politicians, not the Border Agency.

  23. Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Brussels, Mr Redwood , Brussels…!

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

      Yaosxx ,

      I too used to think Brussels was the problem but it has since become evident that it is merely a convenient excuse .

      Take away the EU and our lot in Westminster would continue exactly the same policy of sustained immigration they have followed for the past 20 years .

      Westminster is the problem .

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

        Agreed. If the UK is the only EU country that has a certain problem then the cause isn’t the EU.

  24. Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    The crux of the matter has been clearly stated as not giving “permission to land” without proper papers, the maintenance of a list of “proper/ bona fide” educational establishments (why should any establishment be recognised that caters only for foreign students) and the cheerful maintenance of a “who are you, what do want, can you support yourself on this alleged holiday, where is your return ticket etc etc.).

    Mr Redwood just do it or UKIP will continue to bleed support.
    The Conservatives WILL lose the next election unless they bow to the will of the people on immigration and Europe and not the political establishment, Lib Dem and BBC luvvies.

  25. Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    The real problem we and the other peoples of Europe face is (an establishment out to change our culture and country-ed). Unrestricted third world immigration together with ‘minority rights’ are their weapons of choice: economic migrants must have unrestricted access in order to ‘boost our GDP’ and ‘do the jobs we don’t want to do’; asylum seekers from the third world must have unrestricted access in order in order to protect their ‘human rights’. Meanwhile this (establlishment-ed) have instituted thoughtcrime laws against us in order stiffle discussion about what is going on and who is behind it. In the schools, children are taught (about-ed) some of the (evil-ed) things that some have been alleged to have done at some time in the past.

    Western civilisation created the modern world and is being deliberately destroyed from within; better be silent than issue anodyne nostrums for what is the greatest evil in history. To give the entirely false impression that uncontroversial changes in administrative practice will fix the problem is not helpful.

  26. Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    It may be that an investment in technology would support the UK border personnel.

    The system in the US is obviously sophisticated, the immigration officials there can tell when and where you entered and left the United States on all previous occasions.

    Seems no point in deploying forces to Afghanistan to protect the UK from terrorism if we don’t put investment into controlling our actual borders.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink

      You are so right about the US. Even though I was going to continue my work with a big American bank (by whose London Branch I was employed) and had obeyed precisely the exact (albeit incorrect) instructions from Head Office’s HR department, I was not allowed to stay in the country when I flew in but was instead immediately deported (“Cannot apply to enter if you are already in”), with an accompanying Vice President to speak for me, to Toronto as it happened (closest embassy) where I spent days starting from scratch applying to get in. Armed guards when I got off the plane needed all my charm and lots of persuasion from high up in the Bank not to put me on the next plane back to London. Not much fun at the time.

  27. Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    I think a lot of the problem is the benefit system.
    My wife is from Colombia. She came here to study and has never asked nor received for a penny. However friends of hers who got free housing etc go home and tell their friends – come here and you will get free housing.

    If you changed the system and gave people less money then we would have less people coming here – and a higher quality of immigrants.

  28. Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood, once more you state the case – and the cure – with admirable brevity & concision. Once more, we are left pondering the vast gulf that separates commonsense solutions from political reality: our political class as a whole, and your Party plus its LibDem accessories in particular, provides a truly monumental example of combined mendacity and indolence in the field of immigration and control of our borders.
    For as long as I can remember, people have cried out for the implementation of sound, sensible, rigorous measures to discourage the gross abuse of our hospitality; but for just as long, politicians have shied away from such measures, taken refuge in prevarication, and told a lamentable number of lies.
    This disgusts and angers me and a very great many other people. As others above have said, our frustration will reveal itself at the polls.

  29. Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Plenty of laws. But have you noticed how they have cut the staff numbers in the Immigration Service? Are you really saying that this has no effect?

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

      It really has little to do with numbers – it’s political honesty & will that are lacking. If the right policies were in place, that very strongly discouraged all these unwanted freeloaders from coming here in the first place, we wouldn’t need an army of border service people to administer them.

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

        At 22% it will…….

        zorro

  30. Posted July 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    It cannot be won though can it John?

    I mean, when we catch an illegal travelling in a lorry, we send them back to try again, and again, and again. Do you believe we catch them all? I don’t. Plus, we then fine the haulage company for allowing people on the lorry. Until we have a punishment (shoot them perhaps on the charge they are spies?), the system cannot succeed 100% of the time. Fact.

    Apart from that, what you write makes sense, but we don’t know where the people without papers come from. Hence another problem. Perhaps we should repopulate St Kilda or another of those isles without ever giving them supplies?

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

      I remember years ago when the situation around Hong Kong was being discussed after the Chinese took over. One of the potential options was moving the population to one of the islands in Scotland and seeing if they could develop that like Hong Kong…….It would be an excellent opportunity to test the Left’s assertion that any immigration is by definition beneficial and adds to GDP, if we sent any illegals there and see how they cope!

      zorro

  31. Posted July 24, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    JR, Can I post this here? Regards RDM.

    Lets hope sense finds a good home?

    http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-bale-being-deported-after-13-years-serving-british.html

  32. Posted July 24, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    The UK government is now a powerless talking shop. We are controlled by the EUSSR. Only UKIP can perhaps start to alter things. Or is this the start of the one world government?
    BobE

  33. Posted July 24, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    When you see all this going onyou can see the reason for privatisation.

  34. Posted July 24, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    If you want Parliament to exercise its sovereignty you’ll need to get the present Attorney General replaced by one who’s committed to the sovereignty of Parliament

  35. Posted July 24, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    We no longer a representative democratic sovereign country!

    There is no political will or political need to act in the interests of the UK as its only a region of the EU.

    The UK electorate can be safely ignored by the current cartel of parties.
    You can bet when one promises something , the other will mouth the same. However only a fool would believe any of the 3 main parties.

    Continuing mass immigration should do the trick nicely.Debtserfdom/mass welfarism and big business come big state control has arrived.

    Maybe the estimated 21 trillion of assets held offshore is exerting its discrete influence behind the scenes to derisk things by socializing costs onshore and privatizing profit offshore .

    We are becoming a dysfunctional state where tax is increasingly seen as state/eu corruption and racketeering serving themselves mostly.

    We are a banana republic…a septic isle. Look at Iceland, they suffered but at least they listened to their people not money.

  36. Posted July 24, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    If someone arrives at Heathrow with defective documentation, they are arrested and held till the carrier that brought them here takes them back. There should be a small charge to cover our costs, say £10,000 per day. Paid by the carrier.

    • Posted July 25, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

      Don’t expect carriers to come to the UK if they’re going to be charged this.

  37. Posted July 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think anyone can board a flight without papers (perhaps a few bribes could do it then if thats the case fine the airline a lot to curb this).
    If papers are destroyed on the plane/ship this can easily be voided by having the requirement for passengers, along with their passports, tickets, boarding passes to have a copy of their name. origin, age etc. (passport details) on a sheet of paper all to be handed to the check-in staff which is handed in to the flight captain/staff which is then handed to the UK immigration officials in the UK so that those ‘without’ papers can then be identified.

    Or, have all passports of travellers collected by the check-in staff (not needed on flight) which are collected by the flight crew to be handed to the immigration officials as before.

    Problem solved in an easy trice.

    A little extra requirement to the passenger and costs nothing to the UK

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

      No problem at all with staff cuts of 22%…..

      zorro

  38. Posted July 24, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    John, I trust you have had some input into the plight of the serviceman being deported after 13 years service due to a Commanding Officers summary award some years ago for in house fighting. Anyone in court fore those type of fisticuffs would not even get a £10 fine let alone deportation. The Home Office should take immediate steps to rectify the Borde Agency’s decision. I look forward to your comment, and after 25 years service in the military I would defend this man to the hilt!

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

      Typical….easy target so that they can show that they are being ‘tough’…..He should convert to Islam and declare a jihad….That should solve his problems!

      zorro

      • Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

        It takes a particularly perverse mind to think that this is proportionate treatment for someone who has served in the British Army for 13 years…..it makes me sick.

        zorro

  39. Posted July 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Every time an English person is murdered, assaulted, robbed or raped by someone who is not English, the politicians responsible for their presence in my country should be made accessories to those crimes since they knew perfectly well (the risks-ed) when they let them in.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

      …and that, in particular, includes the Wall Street (bad traders-ed) who have turned our banks and the City of London into a ( a place of ill repute-ED).

  40. Posted July 24, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    That all seems fair reasonable and could be actioned – so why aint it.?

  41. Posted July 24, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Asylum seekers from a list of badly governed countries would be exempted from such a requirement if it was dangerous for them to comply

    Why? Why should we be taking anyone at all?
    International asylum rules state that the first state they get to has to take the refugee.
    Which of our nearest neighbours is in such a bad state to produce asylum seekers?

    None.

  42. Posted July 24, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    Cameron promised he and his Government would get immigration down to thousands rather than hundreds of thousands. Like everything else out of this man’s mouth it was all lies. The proverbial and the brewery come to mind with this bunch of idiots who took over from the last bunch of idiots.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

      Lots of us were calling for a sea-change to UKIP. Now, even more are doing so.

  43. Posted July 24, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    We should be be less British in giving people a fair chance, whilst being very vague about what is fair. That is stop giving people endless chances to appeal. A comparison is with the death penalty in the USA. We should be clear on the rules and make a quick decision. Like those on death row, dithering and delay is unfair on genuine asylum seekers (those who face persecution for standing up to tyranny or from belonging to the wrong group) and inhumane.

  44. Posted July 24, 2012 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    John,
    Just to loighten the mood slightly, I wanted to alert both you and particularly lifelogic apart a very important political and social event which has just been completed…….yes…….thhe Happiness Index!! 🙂

    http://news.sky.com/story/964215/well-being-report-uks-happiness-revealed

    Let it not be said that this government wastes money in frivolous things. This quality, public funded research has come up with some startling findings which I feel duty bound to share with you IMMEDIATELY because of their importance……

    1) Owning your own home and being employed could be the key to a satisfying life….

    2) ONS also found significant variations in the levels of “subjective well-being” between different ethnic groups, men and women, and healthy and unwell people.

    3) The survey found that 45% of unemployed people rated their life satisfaction below seven out of 10 – compared with only 20% of those with jobs.

    4) It also revealed that eight out of 10 people who own their own property – either outright or with a mortgage – reported a medium or high level of life satisfaction, compared with just two thirds of those who did not……..

    5) The research appears to show that happiness differs in accordance with ethnic background, sex and health………

    6) Women tended to be more satisfied with their lives than men, but also reported higher levels of anxiety.

    7) Being healthy was also seen as important, but not a guarantee of happiness……

    8) Age and relationship status also impact on your “happiness index”…….

    9) Married couples, civil partners and cohabiting couples also showed high levels of life satisfaction compared to people who were single, divorced or widowed.

    David Cameron commissioned the research – at a cost of £2m a year – to provide an understanding of how society is doing that is broader than economic measures like GDP….

    Please give ‘Cast Elastic’ our heartfelt gratitude for such an insightful use of public money. I am sure that we would have never known some of the gems in this incisive research without this Index…….Lifelogic, I hope that you are awestruck by its findings….

    zorro

    reply: Remarkable! I am glad you have broken this crucial research so promtly to site readers.

    • Posted July 24, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

      Talk about stating the b****** obvious.
      People are happiest when they are in control of their own lives and have security and certainty.
      So what does that say of the political classes who have massively increased regulation, along with creating structural deficits to artificially create a boom for short-term electoral advantage?

  45. Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    John your blog shows you don’t understand how illegal immigrants come to the UK.

    1) Immigrants cannot just board planes with any documents. International airlines that operate flights to Europe and the USA have to ensure their passengers have these documents or these companies can be prosecuted.

    2) Why would anyone destroy their documents on the plane? Why not travel to the UK legally, leave the airport, destroy their documents, change your clothes, sleep rough for a few days, then claim asylum. At this point there’s no evidence where you came from, so it very difficult know where to deport you. Don’t expect all nearby airports to go through the past month of video surveillance on the off chance that they’ll discover where this person originally came from.

    3) The ECJ and ECHR prevent countries from deporting people because they don’t have correct documents because those fleeing from persecution usually don’t have the proper papers as they’re more focused on staying alive and occasionally have been robbed. Do try to understand why certain laws exist, rather than declare them wrong because you don’t like them.

    4) UK law also prohibits deporting people because they don’t have correct documents for the reasons given in 3. It seems law makers in the past weren’t so xenophobic and heartless.

    5) Illegally entering the UK using an airplane is very rare. It’s much easier to sneak aboard a ship or in the back of a lorry because there’s less security. You also don’t need a passport, so there’s no evidence where you came from.

    6) Not all illegal immigrants claim asylum, as some work illegally. So any plan to prevent immigration by targeting asylum seekers won’t find all the new illegals.

    Also the Border Agency is having problems because they’re poorly paid and understaffed (firing a lot of them recently made this problem worse). When the Government tries to do things as cheaply as possible the result is a poor quality service.

    • Posted July 25, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

      1) No, but they can board with forged documents or inproperly obtained ones which might be difficult to detect as forgeries. That is why they pay agents – to get past this security.

      2) So that they won’t be identified or have a document to be removed on. If they tried to get in at the border, their forged documents might be detected or they may arouse suspicion. If they take their fingerprints too at the border, they could be identified if they get rid of their documents later.

      3) The ECJ/ECHR don’t prevent deportation because of the lack of a document, it is usually because of Articles 3 (fear of torture) and 8 (family life) of HRA. How could the court prevent a removal because of lack of a document. That is a matter for the country of the deportee to furnish an appropriate national document.

      4) It’s just a question of getting the document from the country concerned.

      5) It’s difficult to know the truth here without having access to official figures.

      6) Asylum is usually claimed by illegal workers to prolong their stay in the UK.

      zorro

  46. Posted July 24, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    Don’t tell us. Tell Green, Tell May, Tell Cameron. They are the ones who seem to have a problem in understanding the realities of our dysfunctional immigration provision.

  47. Posted July 25, 2012 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Are there any figures that break down how people get to the UK? My guess is most illegals come in the back of trucks rather than on planes.

    If this assumption is correct then security needs to be more concentrated at all sea embarkation ports as well as embarkation airports.

    Again, looking at how other countries like the US deal with this issue has to be one solution. Removing blockers if they are caused by EU laws is the next step once we know what they are – hence why we need that EU referendum so the govt can start planning a withdrawal from the EU whilst protecting free trade.

  48. Posted July 25, 2012 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    As the EU implodes, their will be many with passports able and willing to come in. The penny has dropped I think, all the flim flam about illegals though perfectly correct only hides the truth. Regarding immigration control we are screwed. Immigrants legal or not are more desperate than our UKBA staff, so its no contest really.

  49. Posted July 25, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    This issue is not going to go away any time soon, because just like terrorism, it is perceived by the public as a threat to our society and the futures of our children and grandchildren. No political party can survive the perception of covert betrayal of the nation, and Cameron is barely surviving anyway, circling the drain.

    All of these fine and fancy notions of compliance with international aspirations and EU directives is predicated on the the substrate of the cohesive civil society at home. You can’t trash the bonds of that society, and still demand the public commitment to the international legal trappings of multicultural harmony and diversity and all that airy vainglorious bilge. You can have bread with no jam, but jam with no bread will get you into an entirely predictable mess. All of your own making.

  50. Posted July 26, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    On a recent trip to eastern Germany, I noticed that German police were conducting checks of passenger’s identity papers on the train.
    Has Mr Redwood or any of his correspondents witnessed spot identity checks being regularly carried out within the UK? I haven’t.
    I do not take seriously any assurances from politicians that the problem of illegal immigration is being addressed.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page