Controlling our borders

Deciding who can become a citizen of a country and who cannot, and deciding who is welcome as a visitor and who is not, is fundamental to that country’s sovereignty. Most UK voters wish to live in a democratic country where the government they elect and influence decides the policy on migration, asylum seeking and visitors, and enforces it at the borders.

In an age of mass migration on a large scale across and between continents, the UK has a great geographical strength from being one main island and one shared island off the north west coast of mainland Europe. This makes controlling our borders so much easier. Remaining out of the Schengen common frontiers arrangements made sense and reinforces this natural advantage we have.

The UK needs to agree with its partners in the EU that the opt out we enjoy from the Schengen arrangements extends sufficiently to allow us to make our own decisions about all matters relating to visitors and citizenship. If we cannot control our borders inside the EU then it is another good reason why we should leave. The UK should immediately take action to ensure

1. People coming to the UK illegally as economic migrants are returned to their country of origin on arrival.
2. Airlines and ferries should not accept passengers to the UK from safe countries without proper documentation for legal entry.
3. People seeking asylum who come from countries where people’s lives are at risk should be treated with respect and their cases examined fairly. If they are at personal risk of harm they should be granted asylum. If they are judged not to be they should be assisted to leave the country.
There is everything to be gained by speeding up consideration of asylum applications. If the person is a genuine case they need to given entry as soon as possible and allowed to settle and work here. If they have lied, committed crimes to get here, have come from a safe country and are making a false claim they should be asked to leave promptly. We should not be putting people in camps for long periods, or delaying in sorting out their futures.


  1. alan Wheatley
    August 13, 2015

    Why was the EU so stupid as to adopting a policy of dealing with migrants from North Africa to Europe across the Mediterranean that radically assisted people traffickers and raised their profits?

    Why adopt a policy that significantly increased the risk of ISIS killers infiltrating European countries?

    When this risk was discussed a few weeks ago on the BBC Frank Gardener put the risk of this happening as low because while ISIS killers would happily die in an act of terrorism that killed many of their perceived enemies they would not want to loose their lives drowning in the Med. Having since then reduced the risk of drowning to near zero the risk to us in the EU of terrorist acts has clearly changed for the worse.

    The bad consequence of EU policy was easily predictable.

    1. Bob
      August 13, 2015

      @Alan Wheatley

      “Why adopt a policy that significantly increased the risk of ISIS killers infiltrating European countries?”

      Because a frightened population will not only tolerate more authoritarianism, they will positively welcome it.

      That’s how the EU works:

      1. sm
        August 13, 2015

        I wish I could believe you are wrong, but I can’t.

      2. zorro
        August 13, 2015

        Very Hegelian…..


      3. Bob
        August 14, 2015


        “very hard not to get the impression that the powers that be are using (threats to The u.k Ed)to force us to worship the State as our gods and protectors”

        Not force us, just create the demand.

        Just like the tyre shop that pays vandals to go around slashing tyres, or the glazier that pays someone to smash windows.

        There will be a demand for an EU ID card before long and that will be the thin end of the wedge.

  2. Mrs Rita Webb
    August 13, 2015

    JR have you enquired as to what our diplomatic/consular posts actually do with regrading to checking the validity of an asylum claim? They should be able to give a first hand account as to whether minority group x is actually being oppressed or not. If they cannot provide HMG with basic information such as this, to quicken up the asylum process, why is so much money spent on them? If Osborne needs to save more money I can think of one central European embassy that needs its budget reviewed. For the Queen’s birthday party the strawbs and cream were imported from the UK. There is a supermarket that could have provided everything about five minutes walk away.

    1. JoeSoap
      August 13, 2015

      Well I think most of us do not enjoy strawberries and cream at work to celebrate the Queen’s birthday in the first place.

    2. Mrs Rita Webb
      August 13, 2015

      Here is a case in point. We seem to have an open door to anybody from a certain East African country. This being on the basis that HMG says its “war torn” and once we have granted asylum to these people, and they break the law, they cannot be sent back because “their lives would be at risk”. FFS “The Guardian” has reported that its capital has held a literary festival. That is not something I would expect in such a dangerous place.

      1. zorro
        August 13, 2015

        Indeed, there are some aliens that seem more welcome than others (bit of wordplay to brighten up the day ?


        1. zorro
          August 13, 2015

          I’ll get my coat…..


  3. Anonymous
    August 13, 2015

    There are, potentially, millions of genuine cases who could get here these days. And the cost and delays of examining each that isn’t genuine.

    The main issue, however, isn’t illegal immigration nor asylum. It is the seemingly limitless amounts of legal immigration that our politicians will accept in defiance of public opinion.

    This makes an utter nonsense of your claims to want to balance the economy, hit green targets, optimise public services and improve our wages and living standards. In fact any post which doesn’t mention these exponentially growning levels of migration is irrelevant by virtue of its omission.

    My own view is that we are beyond the tipping point. That borders can no longer be controlled – and a country without borders is no country.

    The question should be – now that we have no country to speak of – why do we need 650 well paid MPs, Ministers and Lords ?

    What do we need you for ?

    Parliament is to our age what the coal mines were to the ’80s. Too costly, too ineffective and too self serving.

    1. Iain Gill
      August 13, 2015

      Yes legal immigration is far far too high. Labour were rubbing our noses in it, what is the conservatives excuse?

    2. Graham Wood
      August 13, 2015

      Anon. Good post and impeccable logic. To add to your premise that we are no longer a country in the full sense of the word, consider also that a large percentage of our “laws” are made for us by the undemocratic and unaccountable EU. What country worthy of the name decided it should be governed by proxy?

      Also, our historic Constitution has been consigned to oblivion
      s for all practical purposes as it is deemed to be replaced by the EU Lisbon Treaty. A country without a legal constitution is therefore no country and whoever heard of
      a country without its own Constitution and an effective Bill of Rights? (our of 1689 B of R is perfectly adequate in principle and merely needs updating to accommodate modern political circumstances)
      As our 650 MPs are in reality in all major areas of policy accountable to the EU rather than exclusively to our own electorate then they are indeed an anachronism and our “democratic values” something of an illusion.
      Only amendment, followed by full repeal, of the 1972 European Community Act
      will begin to reverse this tragic situation and send packing the absurd claims of the usurping powers of the European Union.

      1. yosarion
        August 13, 2015

        The Great thing about the 1689 Bill of Rights it is still on Statute and was put in after the Civil war to protect the English from meddling Scots / Jacobite’s, as relevent Today as it was then

        1. Denis Cooper
          August 14, 2015

          It is still on the statute book as an Act of the English Parliament:

          and its first two clauses are still:

          “That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.”

          “That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.”

          and as such it is still the founding document of our parliamentary democracy, not to be dismissed as just “some law dating from 1689” in the words of Clegg in March 2010.

          However its primary purpose was to re-establish and formalise a power-sharing contract whereby the monarch could not decide the law of the land “without the consent of Parlyament”, to protect the power of the English Parliament against the monarch rather than protect the English against meddling Scots, many of whom had fought on the parliamentary side during the earlier Civil War.

          The old Scottish Parliament made its own contract with William and Mary in the form of the Claim of Right Act 1689, which is also still on the statute book:

          “Therfor the Estates of the kingdom of Scotland Find and Declaire That King James the Seventh being a profest papist Did assume the Regall power and acted as king without ever takeing the oath required by law and hath by the advyce of Evill and wicked Counsellors Invaded the fundamentall Constitution of the Kingdome and altered it from a legall limited monarchy To ane arbitrary despotick power and hath Exercised the same to the subversione of the protestant religion and the violation of the lawes and liberties of the Kingdome inverting all the Ends of Government wherby he hath forfaulted the right to the Croune and the throne is become vacant”

    3. Vanessa
      August 13, 2015

      “What do we need you for?”

      Sadly, despite MPs and government spending our money and making useless policies, it has been said that the alternative – no government, is even worse. Not much of a choice.

      1. Anonymous
        August 13, 2015

        Vanessa – We certainly don’t need two governments to *not* run the country. Any idiot can throw open borders and surrender powers.

        Before fingers are pointed at any other organisation about their inefficiencies and costs, government itself is in need of reduction and cut backs.

        There are big savings to be made. And things couldn’t be less honest anyway, going on the recent NHS scandal.

        Cut backs and closures are, after all, what is demanded of the little people when they or their industries aren’t performing well enough and government isn’t even covering its most basic duties at the moment.

        The hypocrisy stinks

        1. Kenneth
          August 13, 2015

          Talking of honesty, I see Eric Pickles is warning that we are ignoring electoral fraud because of political correctness – just like we ignored Rotherham…and the BBC ignored the story.

          1. alan jutson
            August 14, 2015


            Surprise, surprise.

            Postal voting is growing, and with it more and more evidence of fraud by fixing appears to be confirmed.

            Meanwhile politicians do nothing much to stop its growth.

          2. Bob
            August 14, 2015

            “we are ignoring electoral fraud because of political correctness “

            Eric Pickles is right about this, but what does he intend to do about it, ElCom are not interested, nor are the police nor the local authorities they all just side step the issue.

    4. Edward.
      August 13, 2015

      Aren’t, the twitterati ‘our’ government by proxy?

      Levity set aside.

      In the UK there is a system of governance but it’s not what we are made to believe, is it?

      Indeed, we bu88er on and fancy that, some laws are observed, thought there’s not much observance to rules in evidence much – in our civil service.

      Rules and regs, our new Gendarmerie silly me… um police service see to it – albeit mainly it is adherence to the precepts and modern social mores of political correctness, courts sit, police occasionally arrest people as are, the bins infrequently, emptied and all the time the gaze is focused on the meek, the careful, the law abiding citizen who are cowed browbeaten and threatened while the major criminals use their carte blanche credit [with the kleptocrats in power] cards. And, er politicians at least are invited into the HoL….. UK administration is a force of power and all of it: it’s nothing much to do with Westminster and Parliament.

      It is an vast tapestry, weft of deceit and of myriad design = who governs us? Where, UK apparatchiks help draft EU law, Brussels enacts and Parliament rubber stamps and the real government is out in the provinces, we call them councils, quangos and government departments, courts and the ECHR. MPs are just there for show.

      Mass immigration will go on unbounded – until Britain asserts its sovereignty and thus to sever the cords attaching us to the Empire of Brussels.

  4. Martin
    August 13, 2015

    “without proper documentation for legal entry” – there is the problem.

    You are expecting airline staff who are not immigration lawyers to do UK Border force’s work for them. There are umpteen complex visa regulations for visiting/transiting the UK. Add to that rules for dependents and things get even more complex.

    Travel forums are full of stories from passengers denied boarding at airports because of airline staff have problems interpreting UK visa rules. I realize that seldom gets covered in tabloid newspapers.

    Please note the UK is a signatory to UN convention on refugees that is nothing to do with the EU. As regards your thoughts on “speeding up consideration of asylum applications” – this is not easy as most refugees don’t have much supporting evidence.

    1. Denis Cooper
      August 13, 2015

      “Please note the UK is a signatory to UN convention on refugees that is nothing to do with the EU.”

      It is a lot to do with the EU insofar as the EU member states agreed that it would be, when they went along with what is now Article 78 TFEU:

      “Article 78

      (ex Articles 63, points 1 and 2, and 64(2) TEC)

      1. The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. This policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties.”

      The EU’s publicly stated intention to comply with the 1951 UN Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol, including the principle of “non-refoulement”, is why economic migrants are aware that if they masquerade as asylum seekers then if/when they are rescued in the Mediterranean they will be helped on their way to Italy rather than promptly returned to a North African shore.

      The good news is that under the opt-out Protocol (No 21) annexed to the EU treaties the UK is not bound by that Article, and so could exercise its expressly stated right to withdraw from the Convention and the Protocol without breaching the EU treaties. Other EU countries are not in same legal position, apart from Ireland under the same protocol and Denmark under its own protocol, unless of course they have already relinquished their opt-outs.

      1. Denis Cooper
        August 13, 2015

        On a quick look it seems that the reference to the 1951 Convention, but just the 1951 Convention, was introduced through the Maastricht Treaty agreed by Major, albeit with a UK opt-out, with the reference to the crazy 1967 Protocol coming in later with the Amsterdam Treaty which the Tory government left more or less ready for the Blair government to agree and get approved by Parliament, albeit once again with the UK opt-out.

        1. Martin
          August 13, 2015

          The trouble with pulling out of UN treaties is that while it looks great for five minutes in the tabloids, other countries will start do the same thing with other treaties. The example of a permanent security council member (the UK) doing this will make things like nuclear test treaties even harder to enforce. While the UN isn’t perfect by any stretch weakening it further will not help. If the UK starts opting out of UN treaties then other countries would have even more reason to challenge the UK permanent security council seat/veto along the lines of “why should a semi detached member have a veto”?

          Do you really see the UK as some sort of mid Atlantic North Korea that only occasionally engages with the rest of the world?

          1. Denis Cooper
            August 13, 2015

            No, I see the UK as a sovereign state which has a right, and a duty to its citizens, to take whatever steps may be necessary to protect itself from invasion, of which steps one would be to exercise an expressly stated legal right to withdraw from a totally ludicrous UN treaty. Or do you want millions of people turning up here with their founded or unfounded claims to be granted protection in our country? If so, then you may care to answer a simple question – how many millions?

  5. Cheshire Girl
    August 13, 2015

    No matter how many people wish to claim asylum in this country, we cannot take them all. I am fed up with politicians wringing their hands and doing nothing. Plenty is said but very little is done. The PM and politicians are on their holidays, and the news just gets worse daily. How bad does it have to get until someone actually does something! Nearly a quarter of a million people came into this country last year, most of them economic migrants. If we cannot deport people who are not entitled to be here we should change the law. Most coming in now are not from the EU anyway. One wonders what we have a Government for, if they are able to nothing about this problem. I dont think we can afford to wait much longer for a solution.

    1. alan jutson
      August 13, 2015

      Cheshire Girl

      Well said.

      Its out of control !

      1. majorfrustration
        August 13, 2015

        Spot on

    2. Anonymous
      August 13, 2015

      Cheshire Girl – The majority of the population now vote leftist apparently.

      It is quite clear the political orientations of those coming to those going. We will become more and more leftist as a country.

      On present performance I can’t see the point of the Tories, that’s for sure.

      Reply The latest poll has Conservatives on 40% and UKIP on 10%

      1. Anonymous
        August 14, 2015

        Reply to reply – Then what are you waiting for ?

    3. Iain Gill
      August 13, 2015

      Yes the sheer numbers are out of hand.

      In many visa categories the politicians just don’t understand how our of control it has become.

  6. Mrs Rita Webb
    August 13, 2015

    The Belgians have just taken in a group of Syrian Christians why can we not? We seem to specialise in offering an open door to people who are not interested in assimilating. Compare and contrast to whom we refuse entry e.g. Hong Kong Chinese and Gurkhas against whom we let in.

    1. libertarian
      August 13, 2015

      Mrs Rita Webb

      Sweden have also taken in 8,000 Syrians

    2. Bob
      August 14, 2015

      @Mrs Rita Webb

      “We seem to specialise in offering an open door to people who are not interested in assimilating. Compare and contrast to whom we refuse entry e.g. Hong Kong Chinese and Gurkhas against whom we let in.”

      Excellent point.

  7. agricola
    August 13, 2015

    What you say is correct, but through government ineptitude and EU intransigence it will not happen as long as we are signed up to servitude in the EU. I know you do not wish to hear it on your own diary page but I am afraid that yet again UKIP have the only viable and fair solution to the problem. The adoption of an Australian type emigration policy where you welcome those you want and deny those you do not.

    1. fedupsoutherner
      August 14, 2015

      Agricola, you are so right.. Australia has its citizens at heart unlike our politicians who tell us there is nothing they can do about it all. By rescuing these migrants and then putting them on European soil we are making the problem for ourselves. There would be no problem if they were taken straight back. Why are they all turning up without any papers to show where they have come from and who they are? I notice they all remember to bring their mobile phones but seems they cannot remember where they put their papers to bring. It’s ok saying that we should welcome refugees with open arms but how do we know for sure which ones are refugees??? We have a housing problem in this country and many of our young people cannot afford to rent in the private sector let alone buy and all these extra people are only going to make everything worse. Our NHS is under strain and who can wonder with every man and his dog making a claim for treatment. It has to stop and Cameron must get tough or else he will lose the next election. Many are already calling for him to be replaced and I can see why.

  8. Iain Gill
    August 13, 2015

    People seeking asylum should have to declare in the first safe country they come to, else they should be barred from claiming asylum. There should be tough penalties for claiming to be a minor when really an adult.

  9. Mark B
    August 13, 2015

    Good morning.

    Whilst I agree with point #3, I have to ask the question. Why does someone fleeing a country have to travel across Europe to a small windswept, rainy little island such as ours, when there are so many other countries inbetween in which they may claim sanctuary ?

    As for cobntrolling borders, may I ask what is being done to stem the tide of immigrants coming from the Commonwealth Nations ?

    We cannot do anything about EU immigrants, we surrendered that right long ago, but we still can, but do not, control the numbers of non-EU and Commonwealth immigrants coming into the UK ?

  10. Ex-expat Colin
    August 13, 2015

    The paralysis induced by Brussels is all too plain to see. Perhaps they have to get through a good few lunches before beginning to act. Nice work if you can get it? The act seems to be the states should receive more…next lunch please!

    Any idea when we have to take in Egypt and Turkey?

    If we are to deport such people do we do it directly or back through their inward path. Doubt the latter somehow as they’ll all still be at lunch somewhere? In either case who do we bill?

    Something about NE England receiving voltage supply drop experiments mimicking weak bat beater supply. £9 million for the experiment? Thought that was brown outs in old language. Seems consumers didn’t notice….yeah, right!

    1. ian wragg
      August 13, 2015

      Wait till things start failing because of voltage reductions. Motors drawing more current etc etc. A 3% reduction in voltage probably means a 10% increase in bills. The very fact that we are having to consider brownouts highlights the rank stupidity of the DECC and Westminster in general.

  11. Narrow Shoulders
    August 13, 2015

    I find it appalling that you need to state the above. This is the bare minimum that is required.

    What advantages does membership of the EU confer that loss of sovereignty on this scale and in so many areas is justified?

    Why have we not been asked about this before now.

    I am British (English actually) not European.

  12. Old Albion
    August 13, 2015

    I think most would agree with the thrust of your argument. However, it is entirely academic. We ARE members of the EU and as such have relinquished all control of our borders. There is only one solution. Leave the EU. But it won’t happen.

    I continue to ask. Whyvirtually all the migrants in Calais, who claim to be ‘asylum seekers’ are males in the (broadly) 16 to 40 age group?
    There are no female, old or very young ‘asylum seekers’? Could the truth be those in Calais are by and large, entirely bogus and are simply the vanguard? who once established in England (less than10% settle in other (disUK) countries) will be seeking to bring their families over to join them in the relative paradise they have gained.

    1. alan jutson
      August 13, 2015

      Old Albion

      Got it in One.!

  13. Margaret Brandreth-J
    August 13, 2015

    How do we judge what is safe from miles away? We cannot even assess safe situations , particularly for young girls ourselves in this country. Where we are told there is unrest as reported by the media we have evidence as such, but many of the crimes are unreported.

    If we take Kos as an example, comments by the immigrants , who are shown to be aggressive are that they thought that they were coming to a beautiful country, not thank goodness I am alive and out of harms way.

    Respecting those who flee from safety and damaging our own Country at that expense is a hard equation to balance.

    Last night on BBC4 an interesting programme on Socrates was shown and yet again demonstrated how a person with moral standing looking for good in the world was overcome by the acted upon imagination of a people with a false ideology and irrational conventions.

    Reply The Un refugee convention requires us to judge. It accepts that if someone is threatened or at risk in part of their home country their first defence could be to move to a safe part of their own country e.g. Nigeria and the Boko Haram threat.

    1. Denis Cooper
      August 13, 2015

      The 1951 Convention itself had nothing to do with Nigeria!

      “The Convention entered into force on 22 April 1954, and it has been subject to only one amendment in the form of a 1967 Protocol, which removed the geographic and temporal limits of the 1951 Convention.(2) The 1951 Convention, as a post-Second World War instrument, was originally limited in scope to persons fleeing events occurring before 1 January 1951 and within Europe. The 1967 Protocol removed these limitations and thus gave the Convention universal coverage.”

      On a quick search I’ve found no contemporary UK legislation to approve that insane Protocol, so I assume that it was deemed to have been tacitly approved after being laid before Parliament for 21 days without any significant objections being raised ,under the old Ponsonby Rule:

      It would be easy to blame the Labour government of that period, but I’m fairly confident that if it had been decided that the Protocol should have express approval then the collection of idiots in Parliament at that time would have merrily passed it without any regard for the scope for abuse, or the potentially huge numbers involved, or the increasing ease of global travel.

      However there is no reason why present parliamentarians should consider that they and we must be bound by the idiocy of their predecessors in 1967.

  14. Gina Dean
    August 13, 2015

    We need to look at the judges that use human rights to allow people to keep appealing over and over again. Which waste years. It’s about time there was a dedicated group of judges to up hold the rights of the people of this country, and stop the ridiculous merry go round. As to our porous borders it’s a joke.

    1. sm
      August 18, 2015

      We need to look at human rights etc (and the associated legal fee incomes and the balance of the win/loss situation and amend the law to review entitlement to legal fee’s).

      How many lawyers are in parliament & HOL ? Vested interest?

  15. Antisthenes
    August 13, 2015

    For an example of what to expect with the arrival of hundreds of thousands of migrants arriving from conflict and poverty in their countries to our shores then Sweden, the Greek Islands and Calais are a sure pointer to what to expect. Crime in Sweden is soaring and aggressive behaviour is a regular occurrence at the other places.

    The majority of these migrants are young men which should be a boon to countries with ageing population and aid their economies. However most of these young men are probably unskilled and have cultural, ethical and religious beliefs that are not compatible with those held by the indigenous population, This does not bode well for the future. Already those countries who have absorbed large numbers are finding that this state of affairs is causing disharmony. A disharmony that will become worse when more arrive who either will be jobless or cause wages to fall or increase crime or put institutions and the welfare system under considerable strain which they already are anyway. And of course the terrorist 5th column will continue to grow and the threat of terrorist acts will become even more likely stretching security forces ability to deal with them to breaking point.

  16. Brian Tomkinson
    August 13, 2015

    JR: “The UK should immediately take action to ensure”
    Your list contains the things that should be done already. The fact that they aren’t tells us that this government has no intention of dealing with this issue. Our navy is used to assist people traffickers by providing a ferry service into the EU. Is this lack of will to control our borders and immigration levels the true desire of the government or merely a sign of its meek subservience to a higher authority in Brussels?

    1. Miami.mode
      August 13, 2015


      I like the “higher authority” bit – it reminds me of WW11 comedies such as ‘Allo ‘Allo and Hogan’s Heroes. Perhaps not that much different really.

  17. alte fritz
    August 13, 2015

    Agreed. We and other countries have been a large part of the problem. We need to be part of the solution.

  18. alan jutson
    August 13, 2015

    Your post today states the rather obvious John.

    Which begs the question, why are we not doing exactly as you, and most of us have suggested on your site over the years.

    Someone needs to get a grip, and a grip fast, this absolute nonsense of taking weeks, months or sometimes even years to resolve a case is a sick joke.
    Either the system is unfit for purpose, the people running it are incompetent, or the Minister in charge is out of their depth.

    Huge moves in populations for whatever reason, will eventually destabilise a Country.

    As soon as unemployment starts to rise again, or starts to become a real problem, unrest is just around the corner.

    Many of your readers have posted in the past of possible sensible courses of action that need to be taken, but so far they appear to have fallen on ( I exclude yourself) deaf ears.

    The government need to wake up.

    1. Brian Tomkinson
      August 13, 2015

      Or perhaps they are happy to see mass immigration from wherever and ignore the wishes of the indigenous population. When you consider what is happening, that is the most likely explanation, but of course they will never admit it.

      1. alan jutson
        August 13, 2015


        “….they will never admit it.”

        Indeed, some still coming all the way from Afghanistan.
        Thought we had sorted out the problems over there, according to Mr Cameron.

        Why are we allowing young men from Afghanistan to still come here as refugees, when we sent our young men and women over their to help resolve their problems.
        The only Afghan people we should allow to come to our Country as refugees were those who acted as our interpreters and informers, who really are now at risk.
        We certainly have failed them.

      2. Martyn G
        August 13, 2015

        That is the whole point of it all – so-called national and EU governments are working to undermine so far as is possible any sense of a national identity by allowing mass immigration. It seems to me to be a deliberate policy supported by our government, no matter how they try to deny it. Add to that the Pickles statements that our voting processes are now subject to fraud on a large scale, which none seem to want to correct and we are moving towards the removal of any and all concern as to the rights of the indigenous people of the UK.
        Insufficient energy generation, water, gas and housing shortages looming, with not enough houses being built to match the existing, let alone the huge number of immigrants legal and illegal, why is that Parliament is not up in arms about it all? Answer, they simply do not care because it doesn’t affect them….

  19. Mike
    August 13, 2015

    Is it not the case John that an asylum seeker’s application has to be dealt with by the EU country they first enter. There may be many asylum seekers coming to the EU from Syria, North Africa and Afghanistan who feel persecuted and in need of a safe place to live but they arrive via Italy, Malta or France not the UK. The EU has failed miserably to gear up for the number of migrants and asylum applications in these countries yet the French point the finger at the UK which may be the 4th or 5th EU country that migrants have passed through. So much for the Schengen agreement – open borders or abrogation of responsibility?

    Reply I can find no current binding rule from the EU for consideration in first country only.

    1. zorro
      August 13, 2015

      . The UK still operates under the principles of the Dublin conventions on te treatment of asylum claims (first country).


      1. Anthony Baverstock
        August 13, 2015

        However, the Dublin Convention does NOT over ride our treaty obligations under the 1951 UN accord on refugees and Protocol which allows an individual to ask for asylum in any country they wish.

        1. Denis Cooper
          August 13, 2015

          Treaty obligations from which we can free ourselves by giving one year’s notice, if we prefer to use the right of denunciation which is expressly stated in the treaties rather than just abrogating them.

        2. zorro
          August 13, 2015

          It is an agreement between EU countries to decide on who rightly deals with asylum claims based on them arriving in the first EU safe country subject to some conditions (relevant family relatives already in a country)….


  20. Iain Moore
    August 13, 2015

    “There is everything to be gained by speeding up consideration of asylum applications.”

    It sounds fine until we realise that those who would fulfil the criteria of asylum are in the many 10’s of millions, and those that don’t can use the Human Rights Act to lead the authorities on a merry dance through the courts .

    The Judiciary have just thrown out the scheme to fast track the deportation of asylum seekers to safe countries, when the Judiciary question the safety of deporting people to countries like Sweden, what chance is there of getting a grip on this mess, especially when we have the Cameron Conservatives running the country.

    1. Denis Cooper
      August 13, 2015

      Ultimate responsibility rests with MPs; if a judge is persistently defying the clear will of Parliament – not the will of ministers or civil servants, mind, but the will of Parliament – then Parliament can insist on his removal.

      1. sm
        August 18, 2015

        What is the mechanism? and how could Parliament do this?

  21. majorfrustration
    August 13, 2015

    “And in working towards real political action on points one through to three I intend to………..” Yet again all talk and no cattle

    Reply I am taking these issues up with Ministers.

    1. majorfrustration
      August 13, 2015

      Thank you. Its just from this end its difficult to see any real progress regarding the safety of our borders, health tourist and balancing the economy etc etc.

  22. Tad Davison
    August 13, 2015

    Seems reasonable enough, until I got to this part……….

    ‘If they have lied, committed crimes to get here, have come from a safe country and are making a false claim they should be asked to leave promptly.’

    I’m in favour of forced repatriation without ceremony. There is a distinct lack of courage on the part British politicians, and they shy away from anything that remotely resembles decisiveness for fear of upsetting the PC brigade.

    Tad Davison


    1. mitchel
      August 13, 2015

      “…asked to leave promptly”…….adopting your best Sgt Wilson voice : “would you mind awfully…….”!

      1. zorro
        August 13, 2015

        They won’t disobey Sgt Wilson, they don’t like it up ’em!!


    2. bigneil
      August 13, 2015

      After threatening lorry drivers and smashing their vehicles, plus ruining their loads, the “being asked to leave” must make them laugh. They have absolutely NO intention of going back, we all know it. Why return when committing crime here pays so well? A police tv program showed a car being pulled up here on a motorway – they eventually found out he was an Afghan who had actually been deported twice already – now back in here for a third time, driving, no insurance no license. What wonderful law abiding people they are. He was handed over to the immigration authorities. They probably released him on bail after telling him he was a naughty boy. If he can do it – how many terrorists are also doing it?

      1. Anonymous
        August 13, 2015

        Big Neil, Tad

        I’m glad the Tories won a majority. They are now exposed for all to see. Their fear of those who don’t vote for them far exceeds their respect for those who do.

        Once you give up any hope that our country is going to be saved it is almost a joy to watch these imposters floundering.

        5 long years to go without the country going up in flames or down the pan on their watch.

        They’ve cut the police and they’ve cut the army. Now the dam on third world migration has burst (because of their intervention in Libya) I fail to see how the Tories can stop it all imploding before 2020.

      2. zorro
        August 13, 2015

        But the government has promised to seize their driving licences…. Oh wait!

        This post reminds me a bit about the Braveheart film where Edward I’s son is busily explaining his inaction in dealing with the rioting Scots… I can feel a defenestration coming on! Bring back Longshanks ?


  23. Lifelogic
    August 13, 2015

    Indeed but not of this is happening.

    They clearly have to be returned in order to deter the many more that will follow risking their lives if they are not returned.

    Either we decide who can come in on a legal basis of merit or we just let the people traffickers make the rules, by getting people to have a foothold on EU or British soil.

    How can anyone disagree. The government attacks on Landlords and Employers are absurd. Once they are here (and as it seems they almost never being deported) they might as well work and clearly need to be housed somewhere by someone.

    1. zorro
      August 13, 2015

      LOL… Think of all the lovely money they can sequestrate from the landlords and employers…


  24. English Pensioner
    August 13, 2015

    It’s the judges and lawyers paid from the public purse who stop us deporting illegal immigrants. The judges are now making the law, not parliament.
    As the Australian PM has said, we will only stop mass migration by sending every unwanted immigrant back to his place of origin. Australia stopped them within a year, the EU should adopt the same tactic.

  25. Graham
    August 13, 2015


    What exactly does ‘be asked to leave mean’ if they are not eligible – and if they refuse to leave what then.

    We actually need to get some steel into our message saying that we cannot guarantee to feed or clothe them and let’s face up to, and take on, the many ‘do good ‘ quangos who encourage economic migrants to head here.

    1. Denis Cooper
      August 13, 2015

      Well, there are groups like this:

      being allowed to actively encourage illegal immigration without any fear of the criminal prosecution they deserve.

      If they were doing this in our country I would want the book thrown at them, if conspiracy to defraud by manipulation of LIBOR merits a fourteen year prison sentence then conspiracy to incite people to aid and abet the theft of our country should merit even more in my view.

      1. zorro
        August 13, 2015

        Sec 25 1971 Immigration Act – Facilitation – 14 years in the pokey…


        1. Denis Cooper
          August 13, 2015

          Let’s see how many of the British criminals, traitors, who are offering their services as people smugglers in Calais end up being convicted and slammed up for those 14 years, hopefully 14 years for each of several offences to be served consecutively, not concurrently.

  26. Bert Young
    August 13, 2015

    Dr.JR the 3 points you make in your blog today are very appropriate . I don’t think it is necessary for us to agree with other countries what our policies and practices are at our borders – they are our own decisions and we should simply go-ahead and employ them .

    We have been far too lenient in the past in the way we have dealt with asylum seekers . Many criminals and religious extremists have been allowed to remain here , receive benefits for themselves and families and to cause havoc in many of our communities. The ECHR has completely influenced our decisions and prevented our ability to get rid of them . We should ignore this influence and simply go ahead with actions that best suit us not others .

    That Europe is a magnet to others is understandable ; living standards in many parts of the world vary and , if you are at the bottom of the pile , it is understandable to seek the most expeditious way out . Comparing the number of immigrants to this country to others is fallacious ; if Germany has accepted many thousands more , that is up to the Germans – we do not tell them what to do . Equally we do not criticize Hungary for their very harsh approach or tell the French how to get rid of the unwanted in and around Lyon .

    So far Theresa May is the only one in the Cabinet to be outspoken on this extremely delicate issue . I applaud what she has said and I hope she pursues her policies with vigour and success .

    1. Anonymous
      August 14, 2015

      No-one blames the migrants for coming.

      The fact is that they are in such numbers and of such unknown calibre that our quality of life is likely to be impacted adversely in the extreme.

      Most people are not happy about this.

      If the will of our people is going to be ignored then we don’t need 650 politicians to serve us. We only need one.

  27. Kenneth
    August 13, 2015

    There can be no interference from other countries on how we control our borders. That is a fundamental principle of our sovereignty.

  28. formula57
    August 13, 2015

    For so long as persistence is viewed as a guarantee of success by those wishing to enter this country for any reason, the queue will not diminish.

    To assist ministerial thinking, it might be pointed out that that truth will remain despite hand-wringing pronouncements and promises to “get tough” in various ways.

    The people accumulating at Calais could be obliged to take passage back to their countries of origin. Logistically, such a measure would be simple to effect and be a demonstrable solution. As it will not be implemented, we must be prepared for the present unsatisfactory state of affairs to endure for many years yet (at least whilst this government ignores the SNP’s view that many more immigrants are welcome to settle in Scotland)

    1. Denis Cooper
      August 13, 2015

      But they wouldn’t stay in Scotland, even many Scots don’t want to live there and prefer to live in England!

  29. Malcolm Browne
    August 13, 2015

    The government needs to make the laws appertaining to immigration and deportation, absolutely watertight, so that judges cannot sabotage efforts to deport those who are not entitled to stay here.
    England is by far, the most densely populated country in the EU, and therefore cannot accept further immigration. Any immigrants granted leave to remain in the UK should be directed to other countries in the UK.

    1. nigel
      August 13, 2015

      As an example, I understand that most, if not all of the athletes from the 2012 Olympic Games in London who refused to return home, are still here.

  30. nicholas jones
    August 13, 2015

    I agree. We should be picking up syrian christians by plane and taking them to safety. they are arguably the most persecuted people on the planet at the moment. We shouldn’t be prioritising (people who may ed) not integrate into our community and use illegal ways to get here. Most of them come here purely for economic reasons

  31. Border Boy
    August 13, 2015

    I agree with all of JR’s objectives, which I know the Home Office share since as a border official I spent a large part of my working life trying to deliver them.

    The big problem has always been how do we deliver when the legal and administrative framework makes it so difficult. The are many barriers preventing removal and I list some of them below. Unless we can deal with those barriers achieving timely removals of failed asylum seekers will continue to be difficult.

    1. The UK is signatory to the 1951 Convenntion on refugees and this (the Handboook) obliges us to consider asylum claims, even the most transparently bogus ones, separately from immigration cases where we might refuse and remove immediately at the port of arrival.
    2. The Human Rights Act allows asylum seekers to supplement any claim with attempts to block removal – Article 8, the right to family life being the principal tool.
    3. “Lost” travel documentation is a severe restraint. Many of the source countries insist on issuing their own documents and this can take a long time. China and India, for example, insist on certainty about identity. A non-compliant failed asylum seeker can hold things up indefinitely by giving inadequate information.
    4. We often need to detain to remove, but there is limited detention accommodation which is often blocked by spurious legal challenges made at the last minute. Even where we set in train removal we often have to pull people off planes just a few minutes before departure because of last minute judicial reviews or injunctions. This is very disruptive and means we cannot use what we have efficiently and effectively.

    There are many more aspects to this problem, it is incredibly complex and difficult issue to manage. The big issue is the whole legal and administrative framework and how we can break it up or negate it. Any solution needs to be radical and it will require resources at a time of severe cuts in in those departments that do not have ring fenced spending. This includes the Home Office.

    1. alan jutson
      August 13, 2015

      Border Boy

      Agreed the solution needs to be radical.

      We have first hand information from a friend who used to be involved in accompanying deported people back to their home Country.

      Many, many stories about delay tactics, self harm, dirty protests, kicking up a fuss at the Airport , kicking up a fuss on the Aircraft in the hope the pilot will remove them, etc, etc.

      On one accession they delivered a person back to his home Country (after years of fighting his case here) only to find he had legally booked a seat on the same aircraft as them, back here, where the whole claim fiasco started again.

      The simple fact is we have completely lost control, and it is that that needs to be claimed back, and fast.
      We are getting the run around, because we are not in control, and we are not in control because the rules are far too complex and far too time consuming.

    2. zorro
      August 13, 2015

      A very good summary of the situation….. The main problem is the ease with which anyone can claim asylum and the length of time to resolve it. An increase in claims and fewer staff to deal with them is unlikely to alleviate the situation……


      1. Border Boy
        August 13, 2015

        I agree with AJ and Zorro. The really important thing should be to deal with claims quickly, within in a few days at most. Returns can be effected without documents under the Chicago Convention if return happens quickly. The current asylum procedures do not allow this. Dealing with legal drag and the propensity of the courts to intervene is the problem. Even where the case is decided in favour of the Home Office (the vast majority of cases) the passage of time works against the ability to deliver removals.

        Norman Tebbit talked recently about Judicial Imperialism in the Telegraph and we should be under no illusion about how difficult it will be to make necessary changes.

    August 13, 2015

    The intake and processing of asylum seekers should be zero. Except where British Intelligence has used certain foreign nationals as agents and their cover is broken. Though certainly the US left many “translators” in Iraq to deathly consequences when they abandoned that country and refused to take them to America.

    One can only be suspicious of the EU and the UK’s eligibility rules for asylum anyway. In the Cold War any person from the former USSR and Eastern Bloc countries who made it to the West was granted residence. Whether they were technically/legally Asylum Seekers is not the point. I recall with amazement just ONE male Bulgarian who after two years was actually returned. He was an arch criminal.

    99.99% of migrants from the Eastern bloc certainly after about 1960 were economic migrants. Even Solzhenitsyn did not ESCAPE. The KGB put him on a plane to the West and told him not to come back. He did eventually go back. President Putin, Ex-head of the KGB, invited him back, begged his forgiveness on behalf of all Russia and personally presented him with a bunch of flowers. Details are all online.

    Even if, we as a country should be compassionate with someone and grant them asylum then why do we favour giving asylum to people who have the money to travel here? What about the vast majority in those countries where millions are too poor to travel, where their house, if they have one cannot be sold ( obviously who wants to buy your house in a war zone? )?
    Supposing I set up a charity and go to a country where these successful asylum seekers have their origin and give a plane ticket to the UK for one million of them. Arriving at Heathrow a week on Tuesday?

    This country is full.

    Granting of asylum by the UK which has a very un-proud record in that it has used the process to destabilise countries and governments and not at all for humanitarian concerns, most certainly should come to an end, immediately.

  33. James Sutherland
    August 13, 2015

    “1. People coming to the UK illegally as economic migrants are returned to their country of origin on arrival.”

    No. Illegal entrants should be immediately returned to their point of *embarkation*: much simpler. Anyone arriving at this end of the Channel Tunnel could, for example, simply be bussed directly back to the French end and deposited there for the French to deal with. Any claim for asylum should be a matter for the French government, unless they are actually claiming asylum from France itself (a claim which could be rejected in minutes as clearly unfounded).

    Finding an intruder’s country of origin, and arranging transportation there, can be difficult or even impossible when they have destroyed the identity papers which got them here. Point of embarkation, on the other hand, is very obvious when apprehended at the point of entry. Moreover, this will put a lot more pressure on the French to resolve the Calais mess properly: as it stands, they just wait for those people to get through the tunnel, then it’s no longer a French problem; start returning all those caught on the English end immediately, and France will have to find a more effective solution, like pushing them further back in the “supply chain”.

    I was infuriated to see that rescued would-be intruders on sinking boats in the Mediterranean are being given free transport to the EU side, rather than returned to the point of origin. Can those in charge not understand that this makes the problem worse, or do they just not care? Intercept every vessel violating the relevant sea boundary, return the occupants and destroy the vessel.

  34. sean
    August 13, 2015

    Why doesn’t Britain slap fines on the EU for letting migrants sneak into Britain or asylum seekers that have passed through many states to arrive in the UK. It’s there a EU law stating that asylum seekers need to claim in the first stated they arrive. What is the point of the UK following EU law? They never follow the laws they make unless they feel it is in their interest.
    I notice you Ministers talk the talk and sit on your heads and nothing ever changes. Yawn!

  35. behindthefrogs
    August 13, 2015

    People who enter the country who have no papers where it is suspected that they have deliberately destroyed them should be returned to the country from which they travelled. Only if that country is the one from which they are seeking political asylum should they be considered for asylum.

  36. Denis Cooper
    August 13, 2015

    As far as I’m concerned we’ve long ago passed the point where I could support 3., on the contrary I believe we should simply announce now that no new claims for asylum will be entertained from September 1st, on any putative grounds whatsoever, and we should put in our year’s notice that we are withdrawing from the 1951 UN Convention on “refugees”, and in particular from the crazy 1967 Protocol which enlarged the scope of the original treaty from just dealing with the aftermath of the Second World War, and just in Europe, to cover anyone claiming to be a “refugee” from anywhere in the world.

    “Article 44


    1. Any Contracting State may denounce this Convention at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

    2. Such denunciation shall take effect for the Contracting State concerned one year from the date upon which it is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”

    “Article IX


    1. Any State Party hereto may denounce this Protocol at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

    2. Such denunciation shall take effect for the State Party concerned one year from the date on which it is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”

    I’m sick to death of huge numbers of people from abroad using this as a pretext to try to steal away my birthright and that of my descendants, there is no quick and easy way to sort out which have some genuine grounds to seek our protection and which are just wanting a higher standard of living in our country, and once they are here it is virtually impossible to get rid of them thanks to the ways that judges interpret the law. So we need to slam the door shut so loudly that even the judges notice that it’s over.

    Putting in the notices of withdrawal would be a matter of Royal Prerogative and would not need any action by Parliament, but I’m pretty sure that the rest would require an Act of Parliament to be passed, not least to make sure that the judges understood the will of Parliament with absolutely no wriggle room, and I’m also pretty sure that the unelected legislators-for-life would block that Bill and so it would be necessary to overcome their opposition through the Parliament Acts with a delay of about thirteen months, one month longer than the notice to be given under the provisions for denouncing the Convention and the ridiculous Protocol, so the government should get on to it straight away and introduce the Bill into the Commons as possible. Then we will see how many MPs of the different parties believe that their constituents have the right to possess and control their own country and how many prefer to hand it over to all-comers.

    I note that we could do this without any breach of the EU treaties because we have an opt-out from the relevant provisions, but even if that was not the case it is really the only course of action which is left open to us if we wish to keep our country.

    1. Iain Moore
      August 13, 2015

      Me too, we have a political establishment who make much or being soooo humanitarian, yet don’t have a clue what to do with all the people who want take them up on their asylum offer. Instead resort to dodgy antics to forestall these people .

      If a company did what these politicians are going over asylum they would be in prison. It would be the same as offering people milk and honey for life, but making sure no one met the criteria to take them up on their offer.

      I am surprised no MP in Parliament feels grubby about the dishonesty of it.

      If they were honest about it, they would admit that the 1951 Refugee Convention is unworkable , and more so when taken in conjunction with the Human Rights Act , and the only honourable thing to do would be to withdraw from it, at least then migrants would set out to try their luck in the first place.

      1. Denis Cooper
        August 13, 2015

        I should think that the original 1951 Convention is now more or less a dead letter, and in fact was already close to becoming that when Major agreed that it would be enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty, albeit with the UK having an opt-out. As I have explained above it was only intended to deal with the aftermath of the Second World War, and only in Europe, and while there may well have been some people still claiming to be refugees as a result of that conflict they would have been relatively few in number.

        It’s the 1967 Protocol which is the problem, as that removed the previous limitations on the 1951 Convention and applied the same terms to anybody anywhere in the world who claimed to be a refugee. It may seem to beggar belief that our government could be so stupid that it would sign up to that completely open-ended commitment, but then it has to be remembered that only a few years later Parliament was approving another set of completely open-commitments when it passed the European Communities Act so that we would have to accept whatever rubbish came out of Brussels.

    2. Brian Tomkinson
      August 13, 2015

      “Then we will see how many MPs of the different parties believe that their constituents have the right to possess and control their own country and how many prefer to hand it over to all-comers.”
      I think we know the answer – hardly any care about the indigenous population.
      Most would want to be instrucred by Brussels or Berlin in any event.

    3. forthurst
      August 13, 2015

      Denis, I entirely agree with you. Sub-Saharan Africa, the sub-continent of India and other parts of the third world have explosive population growth which is bound to increase more pressure on natural resources, leading to serious and continuous conflict from which there are bound to be very large numbers of losers.

      On the other hand we should do our utmost to mitigate these problems at their origins; e.g. when an unpatriotic neocon sympathiser (word left out ed) such as blair or CMD attempts to bounce us into another war, Parliament must consider whether such action would lead to the creation of more refugees, apart from whether there is any vital national interest at stake. For example, CMD would like to support his fellow neocons’ war against Assad by pretending to go after ISIS whilst the USA has been training and introducing ‘moderate’ fighters into Syria whilst also stating they will be protected from all attacks including from the legitimate government which had protected its minorities, particularly Chrisitans, before bloody-thirsty terrorists, aided and abetted by the USA and other ME ‘allies’ overran their homelands. Furthermore, the issue of population growth must be tackled head-on; the human race should be prevented from self-limitation by war, famine and disease. I’m fed up with (people ed) trying to save the planet from the climate which they do no control whilst ignoring the very real problem of over-population which could have devastating consequences for us all.

    4. Peter van Leeuwen
      August 13, 2015

      @Denis Cooper: Interesting to notice here the concern with human rights of the average eurosceptic! It seems some radicalization is taking place in some quarters of British society! 🙂

      1. Denis Cooper
        August 14, 2015

        My paramount concern is with the civil rights of the citizens of my own country, 60 odd million of us on a small island, not the human rights of the rest of mankind across the world, now over 7,300 million and rising by about 80 million each year, and if our democratic process was working properly that would also be the paramount concern of those we elect to Parliament.

        But as you choose to be sanctimonious about this issue just answer a simple question – how many of that 7,300 million, rising by about 80 million a year, would you like to come and share your own country, the Netherlands, present population at an all-time high of 17 million?

        Because if you wanted to increase the population tenfold that would be no great problem, you could simply offer to take in immigrants equivalent to the increase in the population of the rest of the world each year for a couple of years, surplus population generated by those people fully exercising their human right to reproduce.

        So come on, Peter, be honest and tell us as what point you too would set aside your concern for human rights and start saying “Too many”.

  37. Shieldsman
    August 13, 2015

    Over recent weeks you have summed up all the problems associated with membership of the EU and some of the actions needed to remedy the situation.
    Paralysis has set in at both Westminster and Brussels over the mounting migrant problem, the flood gates are about to open.
    Regardless of the way people voted, you and your fellow MP’s are the elected Government and the Public expect action from Mr Cameron.
    Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, says ‘maurauding’ migrants around Calais pose risk to security of Channel Tunnel and that sending them to their home countries must be ‘number one’ priority.
    Yvette Cooper – Labour leadership candidate blasts dehumanising rhetoric used by foreign secretary Philip Hammond as she seeks to implement ‘proper humanitarian plan’.
    So Mr Hammond can describe migrants as marauders, when UKIP mentioned the word we were labelled – racists and xenophobics.
    You were elected to take action, which Labour were not trusted to do.

  38. Roy Grainger
    August 13, 2015

    “If they have lied, committed crimes to get here, have come from a safe country and are making a false claim they should be asked to leave promptly”

    We ask them to leave. They don’t. Then what ? It would be better if you extended your article to explain exactly how we are going to organise mass forced deportations to countries who will refuse to take the people back, and in the face of activist human rights judges here and in ECHR who will obstruct us at every turn to ensure nothing is done “promptly”. The facts are whether they are migrants or asylum seekers once they are here they stay.

  39. Nic Smith
    August 13, 2015

    John Redwood, I often agree with 90% of your diary entries, and again I agree almost wholeheartedly. I do think that nobody addresses the real issue here, or at least not vehemently enough. It is 99% certain that if the refugees (genuine or simply economic) were faced with a Europe with closed borders, that only a handful would wish to attempt to come here. They are armed with the knowledge that once inside the EU they can travel anywhere, virtually unchecked. OK, I am stating the obvious, but this point is often conveniently overlooked. With or without Schengen, the proximity of Calais to the UK is too attractive a prospect. Whether our intervention in Iraq, Libya etc. has left a power vacuum and much misery is only a side issue. It is the pure folly of having open borders and free movement within the EU that causes the problem. Even if the EU were too impose tighter border controls, it would not solve the problem, because once in Italy, Greece or Malta, the “refugee” would only have to wait for a temporary passport before moving to other parts of the EU. There is only one solution that can help us control this as a nation, and that is to leave the EU.

  40. Peter van Leeuwen
    August 13, 2015

    On return from Brazil last week, there was an unexpected extra passport check before being allowed off the plane. At least one person had been “trapped” when it was my turn to disembark.
    That made me think that Calais could be a cumbersome route for someone, having to pay human traffickers thousands of euros etc. It could be easier to fly to a South American country and then on on to Ireland. Entering Britain from Ireland inconspicuously cannot be that difficult.

    1. Iain Gill
      August 13, 2015

      Yep if you can cross the land border into Northern Ireland then the ferry to England its a low hassle way of getting here for those that can get into Southern Ireland but would not be legally allowed here. Private boats and planes will be bringing a lot in. And vast numbers of student and work visa holders never go home.

      My main problem is that I don’t see any of the politicians including UKIP really representing the wide variety of different views on immigration apparent in the pubs up and down the land, which are overwhelmingly in favour of radical cut backs on immigration. All the politicians keep their comments within a narrow range of views acceptable to the politically correct, it just doesn’t ring true. They are being paid to represent us they should do it!

    August 13, 2015

    Mr Cameron is not a good promotional advertisement for a Prime Minister. Unless it is reverse psychology. Display extremely weak leadership and thus strengthen the Will of the people, forcing them to take positions.

    When there was traditional Labour and its powerful trades unions plus freedom for militant trade unionists to picket at will, if there could have been the Calais/Chunnel/Migrant fiasco it would, ironically , have been efficiently and permanently solved by now.
    If the Government had not used police to block migrants from forcing their way into our country, workers would have physically blocked the Chunnel with overturned lorries, cars, and poured concrete into all accesses. The trades union leaders would have denouced the violence, but claimed victory. The Government would also have denounced the violence, denounced the undemocratic and disgraceful hooliganism and in the case of the late PM Harold Wilson lit his pipe and and blew smoke rings into the air like a smiling Gandalf.
    The UK needs a Prime Minister.

  42. botogol
    August 13, 2015

    I really don’t see why asylum seekers should be restricted to applying for asylum only in the first safe country they get to – this idea is popular in UK merely for self-serving reasons (it’s unlikely to be here). Does it really make sense that Italy and Greece should be responsible for accomodating all the genuine migrants from the continent of Africa?

    1. Denis Cooper
      August 13, 2015

      They may be “genuine migrants”, but not necessarily genuine “asylum seekers”.

      But to be honest I’m past caring, mass immigration under that pretext is no better than mass immigration on any other pretext.

  43. Lindsay McDougall
    August 13, 2015

    To do this, decisions about whether someone is an economic migrant or in danger should be for the Home Secretary to make, with no appeal to the courts.

    Europe is increasingly being used as a back door method of getting into the UK. There is a huge temptation for the governments of Malta, Greece and Italy to issue immigrants with citizenship (for a fee, of course), knowing that they will transfer to the UK.

    (Words left out)

    The latest UN demographic forecast is that, while population growth in most continents is slowing down, it is not doing so in Africa. We must not be a dump for Africa’s surplus population.

    We should tell the Libyans that, if they refuse to form a government, an Anglo-French government will be installed

    Etc ed

  44. Richard
    August 13, 2015

    ” 3. People seeking asylum who come from countries where people’s lives are at risk should be treated with respect and their cases examined fairly. If they are at personal risk of harm they should be granted asylum. If they are judged not to be they should be assisted to leave the country.”

    Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people fit into this category.

    If the existing UK population does not want the UK to become a country looking like a ME or an African state then they will need to stop voting Con/Lab/Lib/Green as none of these parties are prepared to call a halt to further immigration.

  45. Chris S
    August 13, 2015

    Dealing with the 150,000 migrants that arrive in the UK from outside the EU is really very simple. No need to re-invent the wheel, we just need is to adopt the points system used by Australia. What is lacking is the willingness of the Prime Minister to follow through on the commitment he made to reduce their numbers to the “Fives of Thousands.” Everything he has suggested is just tinkering around the edges of the problem.

    As for the other 150,000 from within the EU, that will require treaty change. Nothing else will work and, as this is the largest issue amogst the public, he has to come up with a credible answer or he will lose the referendum. I don’t think a change in the principle of FOM is deliverable.

    As for illegals :

    If nobody is transported by ferry or aircraft without proper and valid documentation, we should not have any unexpected and unauthorised arrivals. I would extend the fines levied on airlines to the ferry companies and Eurotunnel. They would soon sort out the security in Calais and force tougher security requirements on hauliers such as proper locks and bars on trucks. It would probably mean an end to the curtain sided trailer. The curtains could just as easily be replaced by roller shutters.

    We can then check the stronger locks and seals on every vehicle on arrival and search those that have been tampered with.

    On the accepted principle of having to claim asylum in the first safe country in which a migrant arrives, we should be entitled to return every illegal migrant that gets into Britain from the last country they came from. In most cases this will be France. I would have no objection to us assisting the French financially but, really, it is their responsibility to uphold the rules, not ours.

  46. DaveM
    August 13, 2015

    As with many other subjects discussed here recently, I am despairing of the total lack of governmental action. I just cannot believe that politicians can be so blind to what is going on. Something very serious is going to happen soon.

    Of course, I don’t believe that all politicians are blind to it. I just believe that the PM is blind to it, and that the rest of the Con party is so bound and silenced by party loyalty that they daren’t speak against it.

    I thought politicians’ loyalty was first and foremost to the country and their constituents. How very stupid of me.

    1. Denis Cooper
      August 14, 2015

      Well, those leading the Conservative party are in favour of mass immigration as a perceived way to make up for the millions of children that the established population decided not to have, partly on the urging of previous governments which claimed to be concerned about the threat of over-population, and the asylum system provides as good a pretext as any other for pursuing that policy over the objections of the great majority of the citizens. It is always one pretext or another but the outcome is always the same, mass immigration into what is supposed to be our country.

  47. DaveM
    August 13, 2015

    If I was Greek I’d be seriously concerned about the near future of my country (and I’m not even talking about the economy).

    The tide will continue to flow through Europe. The UK and other EU countries need to toughen up now, and start refusing entry and come up with a solution, otherwise our grandchildren’s futures look very very bleak.

  48. Lindsay McDougall
    August 14, 2015

    Once again a perfectly logical blog of mine has been blocked. So let me just state some relevant FACTS and let others make up their minds as to the implications for policy.

    – The latest UN population forecasts indicate population growth slowing in all continents except Africa, where it is exploding (4.7 children per couple).

    – Increasingly, obtaining citizenship in another EU country is being used as a back door method of entering UK.

    – In the 2011 Census, the proportion of the Greater London population that was White British was down to 45%. Since then, it is estimated that the population of Greater London has increased by 600,000. Certain countries of origin are dominant among the remaining 55%.

    – There is at present no mechanism for returning would be economic migrants to their countries of origin if they throw their passports away or hide illegally among sympathetic members of the UK population.

    Etc ed

Comments are closed.