The Immigration Bill

Yesterday the House gave a second reading to the Immigration Bill. This bill strengthens the powers of the authorities to remove illegal migrants. It introduces a deport first appeal later policy to prevent an individual deemed illegal using appeal rights to remain in the UK. It requires all public sector workers dealing with the public to speak fluent English. It makes it a crime for an illegal migrant to open a bank account, obtain a driving licence, rent a home or take a job.

The new law will help the authorities in detecting illegal migrants who have got through the border controls. Many illegals enter the country legally as visitors or students, only to outstay their visa. Anyone offering a job, renting a property, handling a bank account for an illegal migrant will be assisting a crime. Illegal migrants may be located and apprehended if they try to carry out any of the usual tasks of daily life requiring them to drive, to use a bank account or live in a house or flat. Some will object to private landlords and banks having a role in enforcing our border controls, whilst others will welcome this use of intelligence from the community. Immigration officers will gain additional powers to help them require illegal migrants to leave the country.

I made the point to Mrs May in the debate that it is best if illegals are detected at the port of attempted entry and not allowed in. She agreed, but reminded me of the numbers who enter legally only to become illegal later.

There will be a new Director of labour market enforcement. Exploitation of illegal migrants by bad employers is already against the law. The new regime will make it more likely employers of illegal labour will be found and prosecuted. The employment of illegal labour often leads to other abuses, with low pay, long hours, and lack of many of the normal terms of an employment contract.

Marrying the needs of a free society with the wish to control illegal migration is not easy. We want students to come to study at UK universities, investors to come and set up businesses here, visitors to come and enjoy our facilities and friends and family from abroad to be able to visit their contacts in the UK. We want these normal exchanges and movements to happen freely and as easily as possible. At the same time we wish to stop illegal migrants coming here, or visitors turning into illegal migrants, as there needs to be a control on how many additional permanent residents and workers the economy can absorb.

Mr Burnham for Labour showed some evolution in their thinking. They did not oppose all parts of the Bill, and he did say he wishes to place limits on the free movement of labour from the rest of the EU. Labour now recognises that large scale migration can depress wages and place undue strains on public services in places receiving substantial numbers of new residents.

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

125 Comments

  1. Rita Webb (Mrs)
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    The problem is though that all of the above can be circumvented by simply lodging a claim for asylum. Once you have put one of those in, the chances of being removed are very much on your side, even if you commit murder while you are here.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:12 am | Permalink

      Germany is to introduce transit camps to deport those unlikely to be granted asylum.

      A measure that if carried out properly and not interfered with by the human rights brigade will go a long way to reduce the pull factors and reduce the flow.

      Unfortunately it will be hijacked as it is within the EU.

      • Rita Webb (Mrs)
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:38 am | Permalink

        Germany has been doing this already flying Albanians/Kosovans back home.

        • CdBrux
          Posted October 14, 2015 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

          All those people who were encouraged to cross half a continent, bypassing normal Schengen area frontier checks (criticising one country who did want to keep to the rules).

          So German policy is to encourage illegal migration and then pay to return them where they came from? Maybe if someone had thought it through beforehand?. This money can be better spent making the camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey more hospitable and worth staying in and taking in the most needy from there rather than those with the resources to pay criminals to help them to get to the EU and who run the risk of death in doing so.

          Well done Angela! Proud of this?

          • alan jutson
            Posted October 14, 2015 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

            CdBrux

            Absolutely agree with your comment.

            What a disaster the original policy has proven be.

            She marches them up to the top of the hill, and expects them to march back down again.

            Me thinks there will be some civil unrest in Germany when some migrants are refused entry and forced to return.

          • Rita Webb (Mrs)
            Posted October 14, 2015 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

            According to some German journalists who have managed to get into the refugee centres the conditions there are on a par or worse than those in the Levant. Go to the Focus magazine website if you can read German and want to know more

    • Mark
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      I think that the law is being changed to make it difficult to claim asylum if you come from a safe country, either by origin, or because you pass through it i coming to the UK. How effective that is remains to be seen.

      • Sean O'Hare
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:26 am | Permalink

        I think you are referring to the EU’s Regulation No. 604/2013 (Dublin Regulation). Unenforceable and widely ignored.

        • Mark
          Posted October 14, 2015 at 11:21 am | Permalink

          No, I’m referring to Mrs May’s speech where she drew attention to the problem.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:47 am | Permalink

      Announce that because of the longterm wholesale abuse of the system we will no longer be entertaining any claims for asylum at all, wherever they are lodged by whoever, legislate accordingly and withdraw from any conflicting treaties.

  2. Lifelogic
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 5:33 am | Permalink

    So will the state actually deport these people, as so few currently are? If not what will these people do and where will they live? It sounds like yet more money for human rights lawyers.

    • alan jutson
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:56 am | Permalink

      Lifelogic

      “Will the State actually deport these people”

      Unlikely

      I see the front page Headlines in the Daily mail, (complete with Photographs) reports us transporting 7 African Asylum seekers from the hotel in which they have been staying, in a stretch Hummer limo, to their new houses in Manchester.
      Only a £3,000 bill it is reported, which has been paid by the Home office, or more importantly the TAXPAYER.

      John, who on earth is responsible for making these type of decisions.

      If they have to be transported anywhere, whats wrong with a standard mini coach or a couple of cars.

      This is really just rubbing taxpayers noses in it.

      Somebody please get a grip !!!!

      Meanwhile the State treats many our own injured servicemen with contempt.

      And they wonder why we are getting fed up with immigration !!!!!!

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:33 am | Permalink

      Have the Tories now fully ratted on their plans to scrap the human rights act and have a British Bill of Rights?

      Reply No. They are consulting, and seeing what they can get through BOTH houses of Parliament.

  3. Richard1
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    Diane Abbott, speaking for Labour on Any Questions, did not agree with this or the line and Burnham apparently took. She said depressed wages have nothing to do with migration, only with exploitative employers. The solution in her view was govt regulation of wages and more powers for unions. It seems the Labour Party needs to make up its mind whether uncontrolled migration is or isn’t a good thing. The Corbyn wing seems to think it is.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:22 am | Permalink

      So employers exploit migrants, but that has nothing to do with migration … every time she opens her mouth it provides another reminder of her stupidity.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:39 am | Permalink

      Clearly Diane Abbot (rather like the IOD it seems) simply does not understand the law of supply and demand (or is perhaps just pretending not to). How could more decent workers not depress wage levels? Also what is remotely unscrupulous about employing someone who can do the job competently, but for rather less? In business you basically have to do this or you just lose business to others who do. Then you have to lay off you over paid workers.

      A bit of very basic education on supply and demand and competition is needed for these complete dopes (or are they just lying perhaps).

    • yosarion
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      Oh behave everyone knows that all employers make Zillions in profits and paying the living wadge of £100.00 an hour will have no affect on their business viability or start of inflation at a consistent rate not seen since the seventies , just go down the bottom of the garden and shake the Magic Money Tree.

    • A different Simon
      Posted October 15, 2015 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

      There is no way UK wages can be increased without negatively affecting competitiveness , especially as British workers have become even more expensive internationally due to the strengthening of the pound .

      Pay rises are only any good if you have a job . Dianne Abbott’s argument was used extensively by all three main parties during the G.E. and widely debunked .

      I don’t imagine Dianne Abbott’s plans to increase the wages of immigrants will go down well with the families of less able Britons who have been displaced onto the dole .

  4. Iain Gill
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 6:04 am | Permalink

    Still printing uncapped intra company transfer visas for people with skills already in oversupply. Still taxing them less than Brits. Still allowing them to be subcontracted into other organizations for less than it costs to hire a Brit. Still giving their families free health care regardless of pre existing conditions, and free schooling for their children. Still many go onto stay here forever by getting other subsequent visas. Why is legal migration not under control?

    • Rita Webb (Mrs)
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:34 am | Permalink

      You forgot to mention one thing which happened in a place where I once worked. Making British workers redundant after they had finished training you up for the job you were going to take either here or back in South Asia.

      • Iain Gill
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        It is routine yes.

      • Anonymous
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

        Coven Garden pub managers sacked on the slightest pretext just before the magic six months !

        GO free market !

        Free market, my arse. The UK market is geared to undercutting its own workforce whilst racking up the national debt.

        The figures bear testimony to this.

      • David Price
        Posted October 15, 2015 at 6:30 am | Permalink

        That is standard procedure when your job is being outsourced. You normally get told before you start the skills transfer process that you will be made redundant at the end and, to motivate you, that your severence package might/will “reflect your contribution”.

  5. matthu
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 6:19 am | Permalink

    This all makes sense when you realise that UKIP focusing ONLY on immigration with Cameron RAISING the stakes on immigration is by design.

    After a due period of “negotiation” Associate members of the EU will be allowed to control cross-border migration from the EU and Cameron will pull this out of the hat just before the referendum.

    But how to keep the rest of the EU voters on board?

    That is where delay in recognising the VW “scandal” might have been manipulated to align with when it was most required with the VW “scandal” itself being used to destabilise German workforce, causing them to support Merkel in keeping Germany part of the EU.

    UK government simultaneously announces that UK owners will not suffer taxation etc. towards Germany carmakers, thus minimising UK electorate antagonism towards EU and climate act.

    Simultaneous advantage of getting the people used to large transfers of wealth from wealthy westerners to UN projects because of climate.

    Even the change in wording of the Referendum question makes interpretation of the outcome of the referendum more ambiguous in the nature of magician’s choice i.e. the UK can either REMAIN (an associate) part of the EU or LEAVE (the inner core of) the EU without causing a permanent split in the Conservative Party (which would allow the anti-establishment left to gain a permanent foothold).

    Even James Bond suddenly going back to the sixties is so we can paint Russia as a threat causing EU to appear the safer option and Russia becoming involved in Syria is so that
    Russia can either be elevated as a threat or can ultimately emerge as the saviour of the West.

    The outcome of the referendum (either REMAIN or LEAVE) will result in associate membership of the EU.

    Reply Leave means leave!

    • Chris S
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:31 am | Permalink

      Cameron’s renegotiation is based on wishful thinking and is nothing more than a myth : We have been told that there will definitely be no treaty change before the referendum takes place and the other members will do everything possible to avoid any changes because of the difficulties they will have with their own electorate.

      Without Treaty change what is “promised” in the renegotiation will simply be swept aside by people in Brussels like Junkers because the “promises” will be part of a “Political Agreement” and not enshrined in a Treaty. Earlier this year his legal advisers stated clearly that “Political Agreements” could and should be ignored whenever that suited the Brussels establishment.

      As if this wasn’t enough, it’s clear that whatever Cameron negotiates, the European Courts will be used to backtrack and negate the changes.

      In short, we cannot trust our Partner countries or the Brussels establishment to fulfill whatever crumbs they eventually offer the PM.

      As only decisions enshrined in a Treaty can be relied on to seure our position and any Treaty change would have to be in place before we vote to be certain of success, the whole thing is a waste of time.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:10 am | Permalink

      Well, the referendum Bill as introduced to the Lords says:

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2015-2016/0060/lbill_2015-20160060_en_2.htm#pb1-l1g1

      “1 The referendum”

      “(1) A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a
      member of the European Union.”

      “(4) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is –

      “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave
      the European Union?”

      (5) The alternative answers to that question that are to appear on the ballot papers
      are –

      “Remain a member of the European Union
      Leave the European Union”.”

      I don’t think the word “associate” could be slipped in there before “member”.

      On the other hand I suppose it’s possible Cameron could claim that in practice the outcome of his renegotiation would be equivalent to a move to a form of associate membership even though on paper the UK was still a full member.

      After all he and others keep banging on about wanting to stay in a “reformed” EU even though we already have a “reformed” EU, that is to say “reformed” as Merkel wanted it “reformed” through her “Reform Treaty”, later renamed the Lisbon Treaty, which the Tory party said it opposed but nonetheless accepted.

      Given that Merkel expended so much time and effort imposing her “reforms”, even making the Irish vote again and come up with the correct answer, how likely is that she will now be open to fresh “reforms” in the opposite direction?

      • waramess
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

        Maybe it is all pretty academic.

        If the referendum results in a vote to leave the EU it is not legally binding and a leader that succeeds Cameron would simply state his opposition to any further action. Job done.

        I assume of course that Cameron would resign rather than be obliged to negotiate the exit and his successor would be against leaving Europe.

        More than this I would also assume that this strategy has already been thought through and would be made certain should the referendum not go their way

        Reply Leave means leave

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 17, 2015 at 7:27 am | Permalink

          If “leave means leave”, JR, why doesn’t the Bill say anything at all about what would ensue from a vote to leave?

          Back in May 2013 it was quickly pointed out in 2013 that the Act for the AV referendum had explicitly stated what would happen if the vote was in favour of AV, while the draft Bill for an EU referendum published by the Tory party:

          http://www.scribd.com/doc/141424798/BPR-Draft-Referendum-Bill

          was silent on what would happen if the vote was to leave the EU.

          And that same omission fed through to the Wharton Bill and now to the government’s Bill.

    • Sean O'Hare
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:30 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply:

      It does to you and I John, but I’m not so sure about CMD and the rest of your colleagues.

    • behindthefrogs
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:55 am | Permalink

      The government should be looking to recover the lost road tax due to VWs being placed in the wrong tax band from VW.

      • stred
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

        HMG could sue the other manufacturers of petrol cars which should be in a different tax band too. Our new petrol 1000 cc is supposed to do 67.9mpg on a run but does 45. Combined, is a similar discrepancy. Road tax is £30.

        My old diesel does more mpg than claimed. The fiddled figures for most makes over the past 10 years, and the way tests are allowed to be circumvented, are widely available. Perhaps they could sue the EU testers too, who surely cannot be so stupid as not to have known about it.

        By the way the smogs in Los Angeles were caused when they had no diesel cars, just big gas guzzlers.

      • A different Simon
        Posted October 15, 2015 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

        Behindthefrogs ,

        If you want manufacturers to continue to bother making cars in the face of massive political risk and regulatory changes then you need to resist the temptation to stick the boot in when they are on their knees .

        It’s a hard way to make money both for employees and investors and the people I talk to in the industry are wondering why they bother .

        Even with engineers being held in far greater esteem in Germany , the individuals concerned could earn multiples in the City of London or Frankfurt .

        Mainstreet can still provide job satisfaction but increasingly it’s becoming a labour of love to do it .

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      ‘Leave means leave!’

      We’ll see. I’d bet money that a narrow leave vote will be taken as a ‘clear sign the British people want to stay – if we can further address some issues. I will be taking this up with the other leaders in Europe and will be reporting, in double quick time, before, say, 2025 at the latest!’

    • lojolondon
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 11:22 am | Permalink

      I think the key here is money. To me, “leaving” means we stop payments forthwith. The EU has never yet bothered to spend within their means, but the removal of a major donor, with very few associated costs has got to seriously damage their ability to operate. I hope and expect that within a very short time the Euro will start to devalue, and collapse into the member states, thus Brexit would enable the return of democracy throughout the entire European landmass – certainly as big a deal as the last two World Wars.

  6. Cheshire Girl
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    I watched the debate, and was glad to see our host there, who always makes some very good points instead of the mealy mouth commments made by some others.

    One thing that does annoy me intensely though, is how people like Gerald Kaufman and some others seem to try and make those who say they are concerned about the numbers coming in, feel guilty for voicing these concerns. They always point out that their relatives came in the past ( often after the World War) and that ‘we have a proud history’ of taking in those in trouble. What they dont seem to understand or acknowledge, is, that if we go on like this, we will be in serious trouble ourselves, and sometimes I think that they dont seem to care. They really do live in a different world!

    • forthurst
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:02 am | Permalink

      People like Kaufman have a curious lack of empathy for other peoples’ point of view; as far as they are concerned, the world should be reordered, including our laws, to offer themselves the maximum congeniality and sense of security. If our country as the English nation has to be sacrificed to that end, so be it, as far as they are concerned.

  7. Mike Stallard
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    I would love to go and live in Australia with my daughter and grandson, and have often thought of just going there.
    What holds me back? Well, what if I were ill? What if I wanted to get a house? What if I wanted to buy a car and had to borrow or transfer money? What if I wanted to use my passport? What, even, if I wanted to join the library?
    I suppose that the theoretical migrant wouldn’t know about any of this. We actually have had two real immigrants who were certified mad. What about them? NHS? What about the seriously hard worker who has been diagnosed with cancer and who immediately was given the sack with no possibility of state help? (A real Pole). What about the young mum with two hong kids who was dumped by her husband? (A real Lith.)
    “Marrying the needs of a free society with the wish to control illegal migration is not easy. ” The Gestapo is never far away – think of the street preacher who was arrested as a terrorist! Immigrants are people, not vermin.

    • Edward2
      Posted October 15, 2015 at 9:38 am | Permalink

      Indeed you are right Mike but, and it is a big but, do you therefore by your humane logic have no limit to any who wish to come here?
      Do you allows millions more in.
      Or if you have an annual figure in mind what will you do when more than that try to get here?
      It is about numbers not individuals.

  8. eeyore
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    I heard a would-be immigrant at Calais explain to a radio reporter recently why he wanted to come to Britain. “Free food,” he said in a tone which implied the bleedin’ obvious. “Free house. Money in your pocket.”

    Addressing problems which arise when people are already here is not enough, so long as the perception in their own countries is that Britain is a blessed land where the natives are pathetically inadequate, and desperately needed incomers are welcomed with hosannas and showered with all they desire.

    A major part of government’s job is to do dirty work for the rest of us. Expelling illegal immigrants is certainly dirty work. If the Immigration Bill becomes law, Britain should provide publicity and education in their home countries to explain the new tough reality.

  9. Roy Grainger
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 6:45 am | Permalink

    Other countries manage the problem using identity cards, a single document that can be checked against a central database to prove status. Seems a good idea but of course all those in the Conservative party clamouring for tougher immigration controls would oppose it and so they go instead for this mish-mash of ineffective controls requiring, for example, private landlords to somehow check immigration status without giving them any access to necessary centralised data.

    Reply All foreigners arriving have to have an identity card or passport. All people born here have to have NI number and NHS registration etc so there are plenty of ways of checking without the need for additional ID.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:05 am | Permalink

      Plenty of people without rights to remain have NI and NHS numbers, they prove nothing. Indeed foreign students get them routinely.

      • Iain Gill
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:07 am | Permalink

        Indeed being born here no longer provides right to remain if both parents are foreign.

    • majorfrustration
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      All foreigners arriving here should have health insurance – or has this topic died a death

    • CdBrux
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

      I think the point with an national ID card (and I have to say until recently I would have been much against the idea, and my point to follow assumes the right protection of data / civil liberties) is that you can do something roughly along these lines:
      * Time limited – needs re-application to stay
      * Needs valid ID card to access any services / welfare
      It shouldn’t be so difficult to come up with a decent solution. It could even be linking NHS & NI numbers to some time limit aligned to the visa and so avoiding an ID card.

      • Iain Gill
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

        I worked on the last national ID card programme which was stopped by Labour going out of power. It was a complete and utter shambles from top to bottom. A complete and utter waste of public money which would have done little to stop the real big time criminals and would have been a lot of hassle for ordinary Brits for little gain. Far too expensive and far too many people at the top who were clueless. Far better ways of controlling immigration exist if that is your purpose. Linking NI and NHS numbers is not that simple for many reasons, one of the obvious is that these are not unique numbers are the good old state has at times given the same number to multiple people but likes to avoid mentioning that.

        • margaret
          Posted October 18, 2015 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

          Now that is interesting if it is a fact as in my 43 years of practice this has been the only accurate identifier. Perhaps we can have evidence of this.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted October 16, 2015 at 8:13 am | Permalink

      So John, as a landlord if someone tells me they are a UK citizen and they don’t have a passport (as they are not mandatory of course) but they have a NI and NHS number then what ? I accept them as being legally here ? With a mandatory ID card which links all the other disparate bits of information together I ask to see that and, with their permission, check it against a central database. Easy. If you oppose ID cards on civil liberties grounds then you have to accept immigration status will be harder to check, you can’t argue that point away.

  10. Antisthenes
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    This bill is to my mind a sensible one but it has the unfortunate problem of increasing the power of the state as so many bills enacted these day do. We have in the past found it repugnant when governments force citizens to become part of policing by being informants on one another. We are a long way off from being a police state but if more and more of these types of laws are passed then it could come about.

    This is the price we are paying largely because of immigration. It appears the whole world is on the move and demographics are rapidly changing throwing up problems like this one. Those in favour of allowing free uncontrolled immigration should take heed of us who predict that society will be destabilised by it. As this bill demonstrates society is being changed bit by bit into one that will more like the ones these immigrants are fleeing from. We will see our culture changed, our civil liberties curtailed and have governments and laws that the immigrants will be comfortable with but we will not.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:18 am | Permalink

      “We have in the past found it repugnant when governments force citizens to become part of policing by being informants on one another.”

      I have sympathy with that view, but firstly of course the illegal immigrants are not citizens, and secondly citizens who knowingly aid and abet illegal immigration are committing a crime and there is some kind of duty to inform on them.

      Reply Most prosecutions require neighbours and others to act as witnesses.

    • Atlas
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:22 am | Permalink

      Agreed. This Bill is intended to cover-up the failure of the pro-EU project at its foundations – something that Cameron does not really want to sort out.

      As for Landlords being agents of the police state – please! I thought we defeated the Nazis not to have this in our country.

    • Monty
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

      “As for Landlords being agents of the police state – please! I thought we defeated the Nazis not to have this in our country.”

      We are, all of us, agents in the way you describe. It is our duty to report any actual or attempted criminal activity that comes to our notice. That fact does not make the UK a police state.

  11. alan jutson
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    Overstayers, when legals become illegals.

    Perhaps we should look at how other Countries tackle this problem of visa expiry, to see which are having better results than ourselves if this method breaking the law is proving such a problem.

    Perhaps you also need to look at the Human rights act and how that is being abused by all and sundry when eventually these people are uncovered and found.
    Cameron was going to do this, but it seems to have been dropped or delayed, can I ask why ?

    • Mark
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:07 am | Permalink

      The USA fingerprints all foreigners arriving by air, and checks the identities of those leaving by confirming their fingerprints match on departure. Their land borders are rather more porous.

    • Mark
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      The US insists that air passengers have a return or onward passage ticket before they will let them into the country (or even check in) unless they have a right to reside in the US. Airlines are supposed to notify any changes of departure ticketing, and immmigration checck fingerprints of departing passengers at the boarding gate. Overstayers are therefore immediately apparent.

  12. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    This bill makes fine rhetoric but what tracking processes or alternative means of identification are being introduced to identify these illegals?

    Where are our transit camps to enable us to deport newly arrived illegals? The BBC had a report showing immigrants from Calais being housed near Heathrow. Why are they being housed and not just turned around and sent back to Calais?

    Remove the pull, reduce the problem.

    • zorro
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      Asylum…..

      zorro

  13. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    I saw in the debate certain SNP MPs, unhelpful. Making silly quips as interjections. Painting the very notion of controlling immigration as an English racist plot. As in other debates their contributions appear to be wrecking even when having a veneer of being constructive. Always and in everything a snarling contempt. Under SNP stewardship of Scotland it would not be a good idea to allow too many migrants to settle there. etc ed

    • Peter Stroud
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      I watch quite a lot of parliament on BBC, and find the group of SNP MPs disconcerting, to say the least. It is clear that they are generally at about the same level as minor local government politicians. One can only hope that their counterparts in the Scots parliament are of a higher calibre.

  14. Cheshire Girl
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    Sorry this is off topic somewhat, (although it has some relevance to the amount of money we are giving away) but there is an alarming report on the Telegraph website today about the shortage on manpower in the Navy and the Air Force. Apparently, under present conditions, there will not be enough sailors to crew the new Aircraft Carriers that will be coming into service.

    Apologies for not posting the link. I dont know how to, but I suggest that those interested in such subjects, read this article. I believe it is very concerning, and I seem to recall that warnings about this have been given for some time.

    Reply Likely to be nonsense. The defence budget is now rising in line with GDP growth and equipping and manning the new aircraft carriers will be part of the forward budget.

    • Ian wragg
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:14 am | Permalink

      I follow the Navy closely being part of many associations and as I pointed out their is a Type 23 in Portsmouth docked due to lack of spares and the latest Type 45 being mothballed due to lack of crew.
      Why not ask a question in Parliament.

      • alan jutson
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

        Simple solution, offer manditory conscription to our armed services for 3 years to all asylum seekers as a price to entry.

        Given we have sent our young men to fight for their freedom in their Country, it gives them the opportunity to do the same for us as a thank you.

    • Rita Webb (Mrs)
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:36 am | Permalink

      The latest issue of “Private Eye” says the army has more horses than tanks.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:21 am | Permalink

      If you know how to copy and paste just copy and paste the link into your text.

      It seems we may have to bring back the press gangs.

    • DaveM
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:02 am | Permalink

      The press always pulls this one out. No, there are never enough service people – in times of peace – to man every bit of equipment. Ships that are in refit are not manned, they never have been. The ship’s crew is drawn down to bare minimum and redistributed to other ships. Likewise with aircraft etc. It’s called redundancy: you never put all your equipment out of the door at the same time, that would be suicide.

      The problem the Navy has at the minute is retention at a certain level. Basically the training they receive in the RN is better than that in civvy street, but obviously companies like Princess Yachts and big shipping firms pay a lot more, and if they don’t have to train people they save money. Unlike the public sector though, the private companies pass the savings on to the employees. The issue of retention is being addressed at the minute, mainly with financial incentives. As for recruitment, it has never been better.

      And – in answer to another post – the idea that we are going to man our ships with foreigners is utterly ridiculous, unless the foreigners being referred to are the commonwealth citizens we have had in the UK forces for over a century.

    • stred
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

      Are the aircraft ready to equip the two aircraft carriers when they are finished? Are the crews available for the ships and submarines to protect both carriers? If not, would it not be better to mothball the carriers too or sell one to the Russians, who are missing the one the French were building for them, then use the money for some crew.

    • The Prangwizard
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

      Not only will the carriers not be properly crewed, they will not be properly defended by support ships if they are ever at sea. We are effectively defenceless at present and it has been said many times that the Navy is probably not able to defend itself, let alone our vital interests. And don’t forget, Cameron has moved all our surface shipbuilding capacity to a potentially foreign country, Scotland.

      But the government is operating on an internationalist agenda, they are not interested in what we, the people of England, think or worry about, that is our nation, our traditions, our beliefs – we are in their view people rooted in the past, anachronistic, and are to be ignored and by-passed.

      There must be change in the way we are governed and by whom – but as long as the British Establishment and our present democratic structures exist there can be no change.

      The change must be to sweep them away – I don’t mean by violent revolution, although maybe it will come to that. The democratic route is for a true English parliament to be created, nothing less will do. Half-baked and half-hearted measures are simply intended as a sop, to fool the English and to keep them quiet. And they have failed anyway, if anything is implemented will not be understood and be open to endless ridicule.

      The immigration bill will not make a scrap of difference – there is no will to carry through with its implementation amongst those executives and managers whose job it is to do so, or they are fearful of doing so, and there will I imagine so many qualifications to the main measures that lawyers will continue to make fortunes. We in the mean-time have to demean ourselves, and are threatened by the law if we step out of the official line.

      Reply I spoke to a Defence Minister today who assured me that there will be sufficient manpower for the carriers. The government is clearly dealing with some of the abuses of our migration system and is legislating to tackle more of them.

  15. mick
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    The solution to illegal migrants is to make it near impossible for them to get into GB in the first place, so do what alot of other countrys do and put the Army in at the ports, i was reading the other day about a farmer being shot at by illegals that had come in by the back of a lorry makes you wonder how many more have come in with guns, this as to stop NOW and not in months or years time

    • alan jutson
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:39 am | Permalink

      mick

      We have family members who live in Kent (not far from the tunnel and ferries)

      Strangers reported as seen/running through/across fields has been a problem there for years, seems to have become more of a problem of late as the number of people around Calais grows ever larger.

      I wonder if there is a connection ?

  16. Old Albion
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Wait until Mrs Merkel hears about this. She’ll soon slap all this nonsense down.

    Oh! and has anyone mentioned all these new rules to those gathering in Calais? No ? I didn’t think so. Not that it would make any difference, they’ll still come in and utter the magic words ‘I claim asylum’

  17. Ian wragg
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Of course it would be good if action was actually taken but more llikely the legislation will be ignored. Any illegal should be prevented from claiming asylum.
    I see the Mail is confirming what I told you a couple of weeks ago. We are to import people to operate the new Carriers. Is this a Tory plot to have a pan European crew paid for by the UK taxpayer so Dave can burnish his EU credentials. The Navy is at least 5000 short and these are skilled technicians. Your government is a disgrace John. Defence should be number one priority.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:14 am | Permalink

      Ian – If we are to be without governance then we should be without the burden of government and its considerable costs.

      Seriously.

      Could we be any worse off without ?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:34 am | Permalink

      “Any illegal should be prevented from claiming asylum.”

      If you make that rule universal then it would mean withdrawing from the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol.

      http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

      “Article 31

      Refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee

      1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

      That would be fine by me, and it only needs six months’ notice to withdraw.

      • Mactheknife
        Posted October 16, 2015 at 11:18 am | Permalink

        @ Dennis Cooper

        If you read the paragraph quoted I think you will find they can be deported.

        For example if someone enters via France, they have come from a state which is regarded a s safe, so the clause is not valid. Second if they do not present themselves immediately as most don’t, this again nullifies the clause. Third most are economic migrants so have no good cause i.e. life threatening situation, so again the clause is not applicable.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 17, 2015 at 7:29 am | Permalink

          Yes, but I had said “If you make that rule universal”.

    • Vanessa
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      No, this is because we have lost the expertise and technology now to build and maintain anything. It is why every foreign government is bidding to build our nuclear power plants because we have lost the people with the knowledge to do it here.

      • ian wragg
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 11:00 am | Permalink

        We still have the knowledge and expertise to design and build things but the government unlike say France and Germany prefer to subsidise foreign business to burnish their EU credentials.
        Its the same with the NHS, reducing training for Brits whilst encouraging Europeans and Asians to join the courses.
        We are ruled by a fifth column which hates the ENGLISH.

        • alan jutson
          Posted October 14, 2015 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

          ian

          Much truth in what you say.

  18. JoolsB
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    A lot of the problems lie with the French. A friend of mine has just been on holiday there and was astounded that on the way out of the UK there were long queues to get onto the ferry as every car was thoroughly searched including under the bonnet. On the return journey back to Blighty however they weren’t even stopped, never mind searched, just waved straight through. The French are not interested in stopping illegal immigrants getting to England, despite the millions Cameron and your lot are throwing at them to do so. They are turning a blind eye because they couldn’t care less as long as they are not in France.

    • alan jutson
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

      Jools

      Agreed. We returned from France a couple of weeks ago.

      French officials not present at all at the Tunnel (French side), they are relying totally on our immigration officers on French soil to do all of the work.

  19. Anonymous
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    The real issue is not illegal immigration but that which is perfectly legal.

    We are unable to choose who comes so that the numbers match our needs with our ability to absorb them.

    We now have record breaking levels of LEGAL immigration. The PM goes around telling people that he’s building houses in their towns (and that he will, heroically, force democratically elected councils to do so if they refuse) without mentioning that these homes aren’t all for the benefit of the already deprived local population but part of a dispersal programme and have already been sold to city councils far away.

    No extra facilities or jobs coming. Cuts to services ongoing. More traffic on already congested roads.

    It is LEGAL immigration (including asylum) which will cause the greatest hardships and Tory voting people will feel and see the decline however much the Government tells them things are getting better.

    Illegal immigration is a decoy.

    I post anonymously because I am subject (as all colleagues) to bi-monthly company videos and lectures on diversity and equality. (mine is a private company) Anything other than unalloyed gratitude for immigration, homosexuality, transgenderism, multiculturalism is frowned upon – to be active in an anti uncontrolled immigration campaign fatal. Such is the grip that the litigation/victim industry has on employers.

    We no longer live in a democracy. This is the real 1984. The 300 letter writing lawyers and judges can do far more than write letters about wanting further immigration. They can obstruct and distort legistration through wilful judicial misinterpretation and delaying tactics. Then there is the BBC and the army of unelected but vocal and well publicised celebs (successful in their careers primarily not for their talent but political orientation.)

    I have never asked you, John, to provide a solution – only to stop pretending that you can. And in getting strong on illegal immigration I believe the government to be posturing and pretending whilst avoiding the real problem.

    I understand the predicament of the government. But I can’t take the lies and I loathe the fact that Mr Cameron can’t be straight with us.

    Reply The government does wish to cut migration numbers and is finding it difficult. It is not only seeking to reduce the number of illegals, but also has taken action to reduce legal numbers as well. Curbing benefits for new EU arrivals is designed to curb legal EU migrants. Imposing minimum pay and skill levels on migrants from outside the UK did cut numbers and was designed to do so. Instead of constantly doubting the government’s intentions, correspondents to this site should try to understand why it is so difficult, and assist with measures that can take us to target.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply:

      I fully understand why it is so difficult. I explained this in my comment at 8.03am.

      You are completely and utterly strangulated by:

      – a biased state broadcaster (the BBC)

      – a judicial dictatorship (distortion of statute)

      – a vocal and well publicised celebrity class

      – a Hamstead Heath clique

      – a Mumsnet/SamCam clique

      – Whitehall … and … most probably…

      The USA/CIA hairdryering that newly elected PMs seem to get.

      Our first obstacle is YOU pretending that you can do owt about this.

      • Anonymous
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

        PS. Add to that list a business class that is addicted to a subsidised immigrant workforce.

        No wonder the leader for the In Campaign is a business leader.

    • forthurst
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

      “The government does wish to cut migration numbers and is finding it difficult.”

      Very doubtful on the first point and on the second point, the level of difficulty is being artificially enhanced by the government deliberately failing to remove those obstacles by legislation which contrain their actions; until realistic steps are taken to reduce immigration to trickle, there is no alternative to viewing government action as window-dressing designed to placate the hard of thinking.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

      You may think this is true John but it is not. The government could stop printing intra company transfer visas for the nationals of the one big country which systematically abuses them tomorrow if the government wanted. There is no downside other than the heat from business weaned on cheap labour. As much as anything its a weakness in the people advising the government that doesn’t recommend the obvious.

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

      ‘ …. instead of doubting this government’s intentions …

      You owe me a new keyboard, Mr. Redwood. That made me laugh out loud causing tea all over the keyboard.

      The government’s intentions!

      Sorry, I must have misunderstood … ‘No ifs, no buts, immigration down to the tens of thousands or vote me out I thought that was a promise to do something, not a declaration of an ‘intention’. Silly me. Silly us.

  20. MickN
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    John you speak of increasing the power to remove illegal immigrants so can you tell us what happens to those that turn up having “lost” all forms of identification
    Which is the country that has offered to accept these people?

  21. Bert Young
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    The Immigration Bill seems to me to be a step in the right direction . Of course there are many aspects in our efforts to control immigration that need to be tightened up ; no matter what is put in place , it will never be a foolproof system . We have always been far too lax in our dealings with “illegals” giving the impression to outsiders that we are a soft touch ; this aspect has to be put right .When an “illegal” is found , we need to export him/her immediately .

    Whatever our position has been in the past does not mean it is the way we should act now or in the future ; we have to learn from any mistakes made , if we don’t do this we will always be licking our wounds . Germany cannot expect to assuage its conscience on the rest of Europe ; population density , economics, ethnic and religious variances differ throughout the region and all play a significant part in the way countries deal with immigration .

  22. Iain Moore
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    Having failed to mange our external borders, the British state now moves the border control onus on us , and makes border control an internal matter. I don’t care for that, we should have the the right to go about our business safe in the knowledge that the British state has done its job, and one of those jobs is controlling our borders.

    As I have written before, no State can be this incompetent. How is it possible that all these people who run the British establishment, that are recruited from the top universities can be so utterly hopeless at establishing and running our border controls? I really don’t think anybody can be that useless, and as such I have long since come to the conclusion that the British establishment’s will is not into getting control of our borders, they want unlimited immigration, the problem they have is that the British people don’t, and as such they have squared this circle by pretending to want some border controls, while being totally incompetence at establishing any controls.

    Reply THis is wrong and unfair. Ministers clearly want to reduce migration, and are legislating again to do so. It does need the faithful implementation of the policy and proper enforcement. In a free society many people have a right to enter legally, and many lawyers and others earn a living out of trying to help migrants.

    • ian wragg
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 11:04 am | Permalink

      You can legislate till the cows come home John but if you fail to enforce the legislation it becomes a joke.
      You have control of non EU immigration and the numbers are rising.
      100,000 students annually overstay their visas but few if any get deported. It is not incompetence. IT IS DELIBERATE.

      • Mark
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, the law is useless if it will not be enforced. The authorities seem to lack much willingness to enforce the existing law.

    • Iain Moore
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

      I am sorry I don’t have your faith in Ministers, for I don’t believe their heart is in getting any sort of control over our borders, the disastrous net immigration figures show that, and if that isn’t sufficient evidence , then all you have to do is look at Cameron’s renegotiating position with the EU. Where Merkel told him that he couldn’t make any changes to free movement of people, so Cameron attempted to con us with line that a few welfare restrictions would do the job, which we all know it won’t.

      But there is further evidence of the lack 0f will, where all the 100’s of thousands of migrants who have descended on Germany, in a short time when they get their German papers, can all head here. And what is the Government doing to stop this inevitable situation? Nothing!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      I reckon it’s probably true at least in some cases. Their hearts are not in it because they don’t believe there should be any restrictions on immigration.

    • APL
      Posted October 15, 2015 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

      JR: “This is wrong and unfair.”

      Huh! On the contrary, judge a man ( or in this case a government ) by its actions not its words.

      The governments mewling is utterly useless. An its continuous lies to the effect that it is doing something substantial about immigration is, well – a lie.

      Given that the administration you support has permitted unfettered indiscriminate immigration, can you guarantee that the administration you support hasn’t allowed one or more terrorists or terrorist cells into the country

      • APL
        Posted October 15, 2015 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

        Daily mail courtsey of Bob @ 08:41 Oct 14th.

        ” ‘who shot at two brothers after jumping out of a lorry at Keele services on the M6′”

        That’d be a no then!

  23. Bob
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    If you have ever watched any of those cops with cameras TV programs you will have seen that when illegal immigrants are discovered, the police are told to give the illegals the address of the immigration dept in Croydon and intruct them to make their own way there for processing.

    Sometimes the police even give the individuals a free lift to the nearest town.

    Wouldn’t it be better if they were immediately arrested and deported?
    If their origin cannot be ascertained, then place them into secure detainment without luxuries such as gyms, licence free TVs and extensive menus until they remember where they came from.

    In the meantime the govt should set up proper border controls to ensure that people do not arrive here without proper credentials, then the passenger carrriers and intermediate countries would be less likely to provide transit facilities to undocumented arrivals.

    • Bob
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:41 am | Permalink

      A couple of headlines in Daily Mail yesterday:

      1. “Police hunt gang of ARMED Afghan illegal immigrants ‘who shot at two brothers after jumping out of a lorry at Keele services on the M6′”

      2. “£50,000 luxury stretched Hummer being used to ferry asylum seekers from London to Manchester after village complained about being deluged “

      Just an indication of why the Home Office is not fit for purpose.

  24. Iain Moore
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    “Marrying the needs of a free society with the wish to control illegal migration is not easy.”

    Oh it is. All you need do is institute an insurance bond. Any foreign national wishing to come here has to deposit an insurance bond with their visa application, remediable on exit. Fail to exit at the agreed time, the bond gets cashed, and the money goes to bounty hunters to go and find the illegal migrant so they can get kicked out. As the insurance bond price would reflect the risk of the visa applicant , the system would be self adjusting .

    Here we would have a new financial product for our world beating financial services industry to create. A job creation scheme for all the bounty hunters we would need, taking the pressure off the Police and public services, a border control system that worked, and best of all , all funded by the Foreign nationals!

    What could be better or simpler than that?

    What could be simp

  25. Tad Davison
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    ‘Some will object to private landlords and banks having a role in enforcing our border controls, whilst others will welcome this use of intelligence from the community.’

    I feel a lot more could be made of the intelligence a pro-active public can give, provided it isn’t given maliciously. They can be the eyes and ears of the law enforcement agencies, but they need to have confidence that the information they give, will actually be acted upon or they’ll lose faith in it.

    Hardly a day goes by without someone contacting BBC Radio Cambridgeshire to say they have been the victim of crime, but the response from the police has been abysmal if non-existent. The Crime Survey might indicate that crime is falling, but so is the confidence of the public, as are police numbers. The reporting of illegal immigrants is likely to put an extra burden upon an already stretched police service, so this initiative could fall down flat.

    Time will tell if this is yet more vacuous clap-trap that sounds good, but doesn’t work because of insufficient resources.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • stred
      Posted October 15, 2015 at 9:53 am | Permalink

      I was with a lawyer fried a long time ago and said that the police and CPS seemed to prosecute people who had done nothing that harmed anyone and let deliberate criminals off. She pointed out that I had misunderstood the difference between law and justice. They are totally different.

      I have noticed that the police and CPS tend to prosecute easy cases, while leaving difficult ones alone. It is almost certain that when illegal immigrants are found in private lettings or employed the immigrants will be left untouched or even helped, while the landlord or employer, who has a fixed address and money worth taking, will face a huge fine and possible imprisonment. Easy meat

  26. Vanessa
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    This will do nothing about the hundreds of criminals we have been unable to deport. Talk about bolting the door AFTER the horse has bolted! We have people here who have murdered people, raped and murdered children but still live here because they have a “relationship” with ???? Human rights needs to be got rid of and our own Bill of Rights reinstated which looks at BOTH sides. The rights of the wronged people in the Human Rights Act is not taken into account only the party which did the dirty deed. This is ridiculous and typical of everything set up by the EU.

  27. Kenneth
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    Mrs May says that people enter the country legally and then outstay.

    Surely the obvious solution is to charge a bond to all entrants who do not have a UK passport – let’s say it is £800.00 for a person.

    This will be refundable if they leave within the legal timeframe. That means that most visitors – business people, most students, most tourists etc will hardly notice the charge as it can be cheaply funded by an insurance scheme.

    For those who outstay, the £bond will automatically be converted to a bounty payable as a reward to anyone supplies information leading to that person’s repatriation.

    This would be a simple self-funding, market based solution which would target those who are staying illegally instead of treating all of us as criminals. It would also prevent most of the overstayers from coming in the first place.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

      Only £800?

      That’s far too low – many would calculate that it would be well worth losing that to stay on in this country rather than going home – so make it more like £80,000.

  28. Mike Wilson
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    A chap with a foreign accent knocks on my door and asks if I would like my gutters cleared.

    How do I tell if he is an illegal immigrant?

    • alan jutson
      Posted October 14, 2015 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

      Mike

      “How do I tell if he is a foreign immigrant”

      He probably is if he has a strong foreign accent, although if he is legal its not a problem at all as long as he has a work permit.

      I always ask anyone who wants to work on my property for a copy of their public liability insurance.
      Amazing how many then just smile and leave.

      Reply Either employ a company, as they have to keep records and make enquiries of legal status of employees, or if employing someone who is self employed ask about their past experience and length of time here in business etc.

      • alan jutson
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

        Reply-reply

        I always ask for paperwork John, check it out, then no argument.

        Years in the Construction industry taught me never to rely upon word of mouth.

        • Kenneth
          Posted October 14, 2015 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

          Pretty sad state when two people who want trade have to show papers

          • alan jutson
            Posted October 16, 2015 at 8:28 am | Permalink

            Kenneth

            Not sad at all, just common sense.

            I simply ask for proof of insurance.

            I want to know that whoever is working on my property, is properly covered for any damage they may cause, accidental or otherwise.

            If you read your own house insurance policy it will inform you that all contractors working on your house have to be covered with their own insurance policy, because your insurance will not cover them as so called tradesmen/professionals.

      • Mike Wilson
        Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

        Lady two doors down from me has a very strong accent. She is French. Chap near me is a Sikh – has no accent at all. Girl in my local Tesco has a strong accent – she is Polish.

        All the above are here legally and, as it happens, are very nice people. In the article it says: ‘Anyone offering a job, renting a property, handling a bank account for an illegal migrant will be assisting a crime.’

        I was trying to reduce things, as it were, to the lowest common denominator by asking how you can tell if someone you might give some work to is, or is not, here legally.

        I begin to think identity cards might not be such a bad idea.

        • APL
          Posted October 15, 2015 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

          Mike Wilson: “I begin to think identity cards might not be such a bad idea.”

          And that’s exactly what John and his party want you to think.

          But can you imagine an identity card managed with the incompetence of the National insurance system?

          There was a Panorama programe that showed how within about four days of washing up in London an illegal immigrant could purchase a National Insurance number.

          Just imagine the scope for corruption and fraud with a state administered ID card system.

          For goodness sake, some unfortunate only has to turn up in Berlin and the German government gives them right of abode in the UK – thanks to the EU.

          We are an island, yet the British government can’t manage our borders!!

    • bigneil
      Posted October 15, 2015 at 9:57 am | Permalink

      I just ask my window cleaner to clean the gutters – -( they tend to come complete with ladders) – he lives across the road, has done for years so know his background.

  29. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    “I made the point to Mrs May in the debate that it is best if illegals are detected at the port of attempted entry and not allowed in. She agreed, but reminded me of the numbers who enter legally only to become illegal later.”

    I’m sure the citizens of some foreign countries are much more likely to stay on here illegally than the citizens of some other foreign countries, so the obvious move seems to be to block further admissions of the citizens of a country if the calculated number of its citizens already present here reaches some limit.

    Count in the citizens of country X and count them out, if they aren’t leaving as they are supposed to do then stop any more coming in. And make it clear that this is the reason why there is now a blanket ban on admitting people from country X, it is the fault of their fellow citizens who have abused our hospitality in the past.

    Of course the universities will be up in arms when they are told that they can no longer take any of the citizens of country X as students because so many of them refuse to leave the country afterwards, but we should not allow the universities to either set or circumvent national immigration policy in pursuit of their own selfish interests.

    Apropos of which, will the staff of universities and colleges who connive with illegal immigration be treated in a similar way to employers who take on illegal workers and landlords who provide accommodation for illegal immigrants?

  30. David
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    If illegals can become legal after a few years they will keep coming. If you remove that incentive they will go somewhere else. Spain is poorer than Japan but has a lot more illegal immigrants because Spain has regular amnesties and Japan doesn’t.
    (Of course once they get Spanish citizenship they can come here).

  31. paul
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Oversees people getting lots of UK social housing while your own people living on the street or hotels, around 2 million and will be aloud to claim the 70% discount when the social housing is sold off, nice little earner if you can get it.
    Just leave with your taking and go back home and then comeback for a another one as wet & mad builds more for them.

  32. margaret
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    One year whilst applying for jobs I had 13 CRB checks. Whilst this seems ridiculous ,I don’t see why all employers should not be held responsible for CRB checking for all jobs. Illegal immigrants would soon be filtered out.
    I also have another problem with marriages which bring husbands; the many husbands of one to this country. It is a sham, there is no proper marriage and these men go on to bringing others in.

  33. margaret
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Off topic but I would like a review of how money is given to ex wives to bring up their children.

    (Chronicles a sad personal history – I think it best not to publish individual divorce stories as I cannot verify any of it and do not want the blog taken over by warring couples ed)

  34. Cheshire Girl
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Royal Navy ‘needs 4,000 more sailors or cannot man the fleet’

    Here is the link I mentioned earlier.

  35. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    I’ve just been reading the Foreign Office advice about Saudi Arabia – what a lovely country, how great it will be when Islamic law is strictly applied here as well.

  36. Jon
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    I don’t have a problem with this.

    Anyone in this country and that is all of us can be charged with handling counterfeit money, illegal money with prison awaiting if they pass it on to another potentially. A bank teller can face prison for not spotting the signs of someone laundering money. Any individual who accepts cash and is then told later that it is counterfeit has effectively been fined.

    This is not State policing it’s us as a community pulling together to reduce this stuff going on. Ever had your bank call you up and say we spotted some unusual payments?

    We do not want a black market developing more than it already is.

    It’s also the responsibility of the London liberal left and those journalists to ask their home help and au pares if they are UK citizens and be subject to the same prison and fine terms as the bank tellers.

  37. paul
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Tax credit cuts falling apart and the money he wants from councils, over 1.85 a year will fall apart and with the extra costs coming up like refugees and so on, not to mention the long cold winter ahead mad & mad budget is destroyed.
    Of cos i am helping out on all fronts.

  38. paul
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    I see that Ireland is bring down it research and development tax rate down to 6.25 percent a year, another blow to wet & mad budget which might temped GSK and other in tec companies to go to ireland to do business.
    Starting jan 2016 with cheaper lorry tax.

  39. petermartin2001
    Posted October 15, 2015 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    Has the govt any idea of the numbers involved?

    Of those who do immigrate to the UK, how many would be legal and how many would illegal?

  40. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted October 15, 2015 at 2:11 am | Permalink

    I have a number of questions:

    What do we do about people who enter the UK and throw their passports away so that we don’t know where to return them to? To be both effective and to some degree humane, we need internment camps and / or some sort of ‘devil’s islands’. For example, if the word got about that the reward for throwing away a passport was to be confined indefinitely on Stornaway, that might act as some sort of deterrent.

    Is there any check made on whether people on the electoral roll are illegal? If it’s impractical to do this for everybody, how about checking out a sample and putting the word out that this is being done?

    There has been a recent news item concerning a woman who has been an illegal immigrant for 50 years, having originally entered UK as a child on her parents’ passport. We won’t be sending her back (to where?), will we?

    Does the government accept that ‘communities’ are sheltering many illegal immigrants and that an expansion of MI5 will be needed to weed them out?

    Is the government prepared to legislate to reduce or eliminate the powers of the courts – both ours and the EU’s – to interfere with executive decisions of the Home Secretary?

  41. javelin
    Posted October 15, 2015 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    It’s very simple.

    List which countries are nearest to the UK and therefore eligible for refugee status. Then remove from those countries any safe countries. I think you will find that nobody is eligible for refugee status. If you and Ms May wish to work within the law then this should be your policy.

    I will do the math for you

    Near – Safe = Zero

  42. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted October 16, 2015 at 2:01 am | Permalink

    What the Bill does not do is to bar any of the 800,000 migrants to whom Angela Merkel proposes to issue German passports.

    ALL of these people – plus any brides and bridegrooms that they import later – will have an ABSOLUTE right to live and work in the UK.

  43. LondonBob
    Posted October 16, 2015 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    The fact you can get British citizenship after having lived here for only 5 years needs changing. The Germans have a better policy.

  • 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