Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: On the edge Mar 3 2016, 01:26 PM

Lots of debate recently about our border. It seems we have an agreement with the French a Government that our border control can actually be in their Country. A bit odd that, to say the least, why shouldn't these controls be in the UK? As things exist, we are expecting the French to do the real job for us. Why should they?

Particularly with a no vote, surely we want the border in our own jurisdiction. Then any passenger coming through the gate without the necessary paperwork is simply turned back. That's how it works in many other Countries, why not here?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2016, 03:27 PM

I guess that is because eviction is a lot more problematic for us being an island; once someone is here, getting rid of them could be a challenge.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 3 2016, 05:11 PM

Agreed. Nonetheless Australia, a very big island, seems to manage.

Posted by: spartacus Mar 3 2016, 06:09 PM

Australia doesn't have the same ratio of Guardian readers and do-gooders or lawyers taking on Legal Aid cases as this island.... Hence once they get through the tunnel getting rid of them will take years and cost us a fortune....

Posted by: On the edge Mar 3 2016, 06:23 PM

Quite right, but by common consent the segment of our population you mention are a small minority now. Surely a swift bit of primary legislation would put things to rights? A far better response for the no camp instead of just insisting the French do it for us. Who will complain; what are our politicians made of?

Posted by: gel Mar 5 2016, 02:41 PM

And Oz of course has lots of remote uninhabited islands in vicinity, which are a bit in short supply here!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 5 2016, 06:33 PM

I don't actually read the Grauniad but I guess you'd include me in that: Personally I think the injustice is the very thing you complain about - the time. It is monstrously unjust to keep someone hanging around for so long dithering about whether they can stay or not. The Home Office is quite hopeless in this area, and has been for years - it shouldn't take more than a couple of days to decide whether someone can be granted asylum, and if they're not then ship them off straight away. Obviously the process has to be fair an compassionate, and it is in the nature of people fleeing tyranny that they're not necessarily going to have all of their papers in order, but locking them up in a detention centre for six months is not going to help out find out what you can't easily find out in a couple of days, so the answer has to be to presume good faith and grant asylum to anyone fleeing terror.

Obviously, it would also help if the UK could work with the rest of Europe to bring peace, stability, and economic prosperity to the places of the world where terror reigns, because our lust for regional influence over the last 500 years has created so much of the suffering and instability that is driving people from their homes in the first place.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 5 2016, 10:44 PM

The issue with a great many illegal immigrants is that they have no papers - nothing to prove where they are from. Which makes it impossible to determine whether they risk persecution if they are sent home - because it is not possible to say where their home is.

For this reason many illegal immigrants destroy their papers making deportation almost impossible.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2016, 11:25 AM

Yes, sure, it's inevitable that if you're fleeing tyranny that you won't necessarily have your papers, and nor is it practical to ask the country you're fleeing to vouch for who you are, so the only civilised answer is to grant them asylum - it's really not that complicated.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 6 2016, 12:19 PM

To me, and I'm not alone in this, the view that we should let em all in is as dangerous as it is financially suicidal. Most of these people are coming from Syria, a very great many of them are young Muslim men coming from a country ravaged by Isis. Its not just me who suspects that the easiest way to get fanatical Jihadist killers comfortably ensconced into the heart of the hated Western society is to simply mix them into the genuine asylum seekers. Now that's not complicated either! Of course we need to know who we are extending our hands to, before we get them bitten off.

Oh and if your prepared enough to bring iPhones and iPods with you (as evidenced by scenes on the telly!) I'm sure that the genuine ones will find time to pick up their papers, c'nest pas?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 6 2016, 01:44 PM

Fair enough. So, given that the French might not want and we should not expect them to be our 'wall' - what is your solution?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2016, 04:06 PM

You position is essentially that Blighty should not give asylum to anyone, and I can't agree that that's a humane or civilised approach, or even that it's reasonable or proportionate. Only granting sanctuary to people with bona fide travel documents originating from war-torn terror states would keep out economic migrants from other countries, but it would turn away people fleeing without papers, and that doesn't seem right.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 6 2016, 04:55 PM

You make it sound like they a running at a moment's notice, not true. They find time to pack and in most cases arrange for travel. So how come they can't pick up their ID documents at the same time? Answer is of course the people smugglers tell them not to precisely so they can't be identified. Those who are legit will have their papers. Now that's not complicated!

Posted by: On the edge Mar 6 2016, 05:13 PM

So exactly what are you proposing?

It sounds like you are saying that:
A) we need to substantially increase the number of Customs and Court Officers at all ports of entry
2) everyone entering the UK will have their documentation checked
C) anyone found with documentation out of order will be stopped from entry. (That is, they will be left in the hands of their transporter to do what they will)
D) anyone claiming asylum will immediately have their claim tested and if rejected as in C, barred from entry. Appeals could be dealt with having magistrates on hand.
Presumably, the transporters, railways, coaches, lorries will need some sort of secure seating installed so that the outward journey can be made.

Yes, it would work of course. We'd necessarily need a squad to watch remote airfields and beaches as well. I suspect the transport industry particularly Lorry drivers (who moan about everything anyway) might raise the odd objection or two.

It's also going to ****** up all those foreign holiday makers, business travellers etc. because whilst it's getting set up, the queues are going to be pretty horrendous. Still, might encourage more to take UK holidays. Then there is the cost, all those extra civil servants, needed 24/7.

Still worth it eh?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 6 2016, 05:51 PM

Deciding if they are legit is not the problem - the problem is complying with international convention (law?) in returning them to their home country. If you can't identify the home country you can't deport them - precisely why they destroy their IDs.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 6 2016, 07:53 PM

Yup!

Posted by: The Hatter Mar 6 2016, 07:53 PM

They already check passports and tickets on Eurostar and Planes so for those who travel the normal ways would have had to have shown where they come from.

Posted by: user23 Mar 6 2016, 08:53 PM

Yes, and should the UK vote no in the EU referendum we'd see "the Jungle" in Calais move from Calais to Dover.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2016, 09:12 PM

Not necessarily. The last time the Europeans left England was at the start of the Dark Ages, and I don't suppose our island economy will do much better this time round, so I can imagine quite a queue of Brits in Calais trying to leave before the lights go out.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 6 2016, 11:40 PM

Except the Europeans arrived back in force in 1066! And never left.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 7 2016, 07:17 AM

Except they didn't....

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 7 2016, 07:34 AM

Explain?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 7 2016, 08:04 AM

In simple terms, the Roman Empire was a common market, with a common currency and a common law whereas William was a contender for the Throne. 1066 was actually a family bust up; where the b a startd won. (Banned word used in correct context)

Posted by: blackdog Mar 7 2016, 08:12 AM

So, they arrive in a normal way on a tourist visa.

They then burn their passport, change their name, and settle down in the black economy for a year or two. Eventually they may claim asylum to get access to benefits, NHS care etc.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 7 2016, 08:27 AM

As apparently many believe the problem is such a serious threat to national security, lets clamp down on Tourist Visas.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 7 2016, 08:27 AM

As apparently many believe the problem is such a serious threat to national security, lets clamp down on Tourist Visas.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 7 2016, 06:31 PM

Do they?

It's a loophole used by some to circumvent immigration rules, but I can't see it as a huge security threat.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 7 2016, 10:08 PM

I meant there are said to be large numbers of is in the UK who want to effectively seal off our boarder to keep out immigrants; because hordes of terrorists are gaining access by pretending to be asylum seekers / economic migrants.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 7 2016, 11:32 PM

The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have border control with much stricter immigration and visitor rules.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 8 2016, 08:00 AM

Yes, they do, I'm making no judgement, I just want to be assured that people do fully realise what they are saying with soundbite remarks. The American point is interesting - Donald Trump doesn't agree with you, hence his demand for a wall...

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 8 2016, 08:39 PM

Let them all in. No pressure on public services I can see. After all Falkland surgery only have 14000 patients now. May as well make it 250000 as it won't make any difference. You still wont get to see a bl00dy doctor!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 8 2016, 08:59 PM

You know of course that the pre-Roman Brits were short, blond, and ugly - tall dark and handsome sounds suspiciously Mediterranean to me...

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 8 2016, 09:10 PM

Where did you get that picture of me?

"Kirby" means "Dark Son" so I may be from the med but all indications are you are from further south!!!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 8 2016, 09:23 PM

Posted by: Berkshirelad Mar 10 2016, 10:20 AM

The border control being in Calais has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. Whichever way we vote.

It is a simple bilateral treaty between two sovereign states and is outwith any EU interference. It exists to make life simpler for bona fide travellers in both directions as border security is dealt with as you arrive at the port and not as everybody gets off the train and has to queue.

Furthermore, in order to set up a 'jungle' in Kent, the migrants would first have to get through the border.

The US has a bilateral deal with Eire. If you fly from Dublin or Shannon to the USA, you clear border controls at the departure airport rather than on arrival in the US

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 11 2016, 12:38 AM

But, if we had the 'jungle' in Dover it would be so much more convenient for the activists luvvies to go throw rock at the police. I mean, why not?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2016, 12:56 AM

We wouldn't have a Jungle; that's daft. It would have to be prison for it to have any inhabitants. The Jungle exists because people are queuing to get in to the UK and once in the people would disperse.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 11 2016, 11:39 AM

Quite right(ish). Thousands do get through to the UK and we do have prisons for them- our detention centres are bulging at the seams.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 11 2016, 12:06 PM

Illegal immigrants do not get sent to prison they get sent to a detention center, providing one is available of course which very often is not the case, whilst their circumstances are investigate. As the majority of them have no paperwork or any form of identification, often on purpose I believe, then it is very hard indeed to send them back to any other country. Police officers often detain them when found but as there is not enough detention center places for them they then get let out on bail and of course then disappear. again.
The only sure way to stop illegals is to ensure they aren't able to enter the UK in the first place but how you do that has not been decided yet!

Posted by: Berkshirelad Mar 11 2016, 01:47 PM

Whereas in Calais, they have built their own...

If an asylum seeker is allowed asylum in an EU country, then after a couple of years, they have the right to avail themselves of free movement within the EU (currently including the UK). Don't confuse this with Schengen which is about border control and not free movement between countries.

Our problem with immigration (if you accept that there is too much at the moment) is that we can only deny access to non-EU citizens. This prevents us controlling numbers of immigrants effectively as well as being entirely unfair on non-EU applicants.

If we leave the EU, we can effectively control all immigration - perhaps with a points system like US, Canada, Australia and others.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 11 2016, 03:23 PM

10
9
8
7
6
Just counting down, waiting for the first howls of Xenophobe, Little Englander, racist, Nazi or indeed any other comments from the ' right on ' brigade.
5

4

Posted by: On the edge Mar 11 2016, 04:49 PM

The last paragraph sums it up; if we leave, we can....but could we and would we?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2016, 04:50 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KPplYp7K7M

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 11 2016, 09:55 PM

You forgot "swivel eyed Daily Mail reading ignoramus"

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 12 2016, 01:02 AM

So I did, so I did. Thanks for the heads up.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2016, 04:23 AM

"Sounds like someone needs a cuddle."

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 13 2016, 08:41 AM

Are you offering AC?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 13 2016, 10:01 AM

Points systems only apply to those who apply to come, the thousands who arrive through the back door don't fill in forms, they just arrive, ditch their documents and stay. This idea of some impenetrable border is a myth.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 13 2016, 11:55 AM

Now I've read that? Going off to bleach my eyes! Shudder!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 13 2016, 12:42 PM

Can someone please explain to me why official migration is 1 million over the last 5 years but the numbers of new national insurance numbers is 2.25 million over the same period. Is someone telling porkies?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 13 2016, 01:00 PM

Are you forgetting people who are born here? There were around 3.5 million babies born in the UK over the last 5 years, they'll get NI Numbers won't they?

Also, is your 1 million figure net immigration? That's would mean that over this period 1 million more people stayed than left, but as NI Numbers are (presumably) issued to everyone who arrives the 2.25 million looks like the total number of immigrants, with 1 million less than this leaving in the same period.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 13 2016, 02:37 PM

My point is can we not have some detail? It will help people make a personal judgement on whether they think immigration is to high or indeed if we should be welcoming more people. No one seems to know.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 13 2016, 05:09 PM

I was going to ask what this was all about, but then I found http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3467143/Farage-puts-immigration-concerns-centre-Ukip-referendum-campaign.html - there's your problem.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 13 2016, 06:12 PM

So you are saying we should all be good little mushrooms and be kept in the dark?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 13 2016, 06:16 PM

Nigel, top bloke!

Posted by: x2lls Mar 13 2016, 07:00 PM

Not until age 16, so still approx 10 years to go based on your figures, for the numbers to add up.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 13 2016, 07:23 PM

I just want cold hard facts. This will not please some.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 13 2016, 08:23 PM

The total birth rate has been broadly the same for the last fifty years at around 700,000-odd births annually, so in any five year period you're going to be allocating some 3.5 million NI numbers, give or take, and that's an order of magnitude greater than the numbers Farage is quibbling. Anyroadup, Farage was talking about NI numbers issued to non-UK nationals.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-claims-national-insurance-number-registrations-show-ons-covering-up-uk-immigration-a6897206.html. The issue is that the turn-over of economic migrants is quite high with rather a lot going home after only a relatively short stay in the UK, and rather than accepting the objective evidence of the Office of National Statistics Farage instead is alleging a conspiracy by the ONS to hide the true level of economic migration.

BTW, the Independent says that "Anyone born in the UK is assigned a [NI] number at birth", but I'm not going to quibble if you say it's 16.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 13 2016, 08:31 PM

If it's cold hard facts you might do better to ask the Office of National Statistics. http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/february2016.

And that report rather helpfully offers "If you are new to migration statistics, you might find it helpful to read our “http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/population-and-migration/international-migration-methodology/international-migration-statistics-first-time-user-guide--pdf-.pdf”. "

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 13 2016, 08:46 PM

Gotta love the keyboard warrior with a hyperlink.
You try too hard sometimes....
I guess you are in the remain camp. I'm yet to make up my mind. Leaning toward no as I'm a gambler and I think it's all bluff and bluster from Brussels. They would sh@t themselves and ask us what we really want. It's all just a bl00dy game and the British have to get better at it.

Posted by: user23 Mar 13 2016, 08:55 PM

I'm loving that Farage left the official leave campaign.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 13 2016, 09:11 PM

Not a natural joiner is he.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 13 2016, 09:13 PM

Rofl

Posted by: On the edge Mar 13 2016, 09:49 PM

It's actually the National Health number you get allocated with at birth, it's now your Government Personal Account Number. Just before you are sixteen, your National Insurance number is derived and sent to you - because you become subject to taxation. We know who you are....

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 13 2016, 10:43 PM

Thanks.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 14 2016, 02:51 PM

The explanation for the difference that I heard on the radio recently was that NI numbers are given to all seeking to work in the UK - whether for a month or for life. So includes a lot of temporary migrants.

Whereas the immigration figures are derived from a question asked at the point of arrival - do you intend to stay for 1 year or more (or a variation thereof). Naturally no-one tells porkies to an immigration officer!

So the NI numbers are accurate, but include a lot of short term immigrants, and the immigration figures are less accurate and are liable to be on the low side.

So the real answer is somewhere between the two.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 14 2016, 05:16 PM

Unless there is a high number working without papers. I've always been sceptical of the figures. I've always thought the number ot be higher than reported.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 14 2016, 08:06 PM

Can you justify that? The ONS go to some length to explain their methodology, even going into some detail on their measure of uncertainty and the symmetric distribution of the error. If the ONS have applied some science to saying that their figures are no more likely to be lower than higher than I would like to understand the basis on which you disagree.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 14 2016, 09:02 PM

I haven't looked at the ONS methodology.

If the number is derived as I heard - from questioning folk as they enter the UK - then I can readily imagine that those on tourist visas meaning to stay don't tell border control that they intend to outstay their visa.

In general I would assume that those saying they will stay for more than a year (thus making them immigrants) are less likely to be lying than those saying they are just here on holiday and will be gone within a year. So the figure would be lower than reality.

If the ONS apply some credible adjustment to cater for this factor then the figure is not as simple as I heard, and may well be more accurate than I had supposed.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 14 2016, 09:20 PM

It's difficult to validate, but the ONS do indeed account for the factors you mention and they also go to some effort to estimate the accuracy of their figures. As data go I thought they were rather well presented.

Posted by: James_Trinder Mar 15 2016, 01:50 PM

Speaking as a statistician I think that their methodology is about as sound as it can be based on the data available and can assure you that the inherent bias in the sample will have been adjusted for (although the extent of bias in a sample is difficult to estimate). The ONS proposals to take account of recorded exits from the country (in addition to recorded entries) should definitely help to improve these estimates in the future as well.

Posted by: CharlieF Mar 16 2016, 02:21 PM

It is perfectly possible to determine from hair and teeth analysis of 5000 year old bog body where they lived and moved to during their lifetime, as well as to accurately assess their age through joint fusion and tooth development, but apparently a 35 year old economic migrant who has thrown away his papers can pass himself off as a primary school pupil from Syria! What a load of cobblers!

Posted by: user23 Oct 23 2016, 09:50 AM

So it looks like this is happening as predicted, and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37742536.

It seems inevitable that if these migrants are no longer being held in France, a similar camp will appear in Dover.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 23 2016, 10:02 AM

But all that's happening is they are being shipped to centres in other parts of France.

Posted by: user23 Oct 23 2016, 11:58 AM

And will all new arrivals at Calais be shipped to centres in other parts of France, particularly when the UK is no longer part of the EU?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 23 2016, 12:04 PM

Barbed wire is cheap, rabid killer attack dogs are available from many retailer's and if all else fails plant a nice thick Hawthorne hedge.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2016, 01:52 PM

Surely this is a problem that is rapidly going away? First, the expert opinion from those still wanting to stay in the EU is that because of the referendum result, the UK is going to be pauperised, starting from now, so no one in their right mind would want to come here. Second, once we are actually out, those few that do come without the necessary permits can simply be sent back to their last Country of origin -.which will, of course, be (in many cases) France.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 23 2016, 02:51 PM

Bear traps. Get them on amazon. (Other retailers are available)

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 23 2016, 02:56 PM

Its why the French are so grumpy, it will all make France look like a better place to head for.

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Oct 25 2016, 10:07 AM

And to parts of the UK as well.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 25 2016, 04:07 PM

To be fair, mainly children. Jesus said "let the children come unto me".

Posted by: Berkshirelad Oct 25 2016, 04:52 PM

I didn't think we were allowed to send them there any more...

Posted by: On the edge Oct 25 2016, 06:43 PM

It's the 'children' tag that gets me. Why must there always be such spin! If this description is right and we are 'children' until age 18, then other aspects of our society are in serious trouble; for instance, a huge number could now face prosecution for having sex with a 'child'. Let's simply be honest and take in migrants; no emotional descriptors needed.
.

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Oct 27 2016, 07:37 PM

No, lets not. Thanks.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 27 2016, 09:33 PM

I'm with you there.... We don't need a load of arabs to work our arable fields around these parts but how many hand car wash businesses can a town the size of Newbury sustain?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 27 2016, 11:43 PM

They could always work in burghfield, at the bomb factory.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 29 2016, 12:31 AM

Oh Lilly Allen, you soo funny!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2016, 09:56 AM

Handy getting your stuff delivered on Sunday.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 30 2016, 05:40 AM

Can you imagine the wailing of the bbc if our government did this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-37814496

Posted by: On the edge Oct 30 2016, 08:04 AM

Oh yes; but then I'm old enough to remember the gnashing and wailing that went on when repressive regimes physically stopped their peoples trying to leave; a Trump Mexican wall in reverse so to speak. Makes you wonder what we really want?

Posted by: newres Oct 30 2016, 08:51 AM

I don't think most on here care terribly about non white, non western Europeans.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 30 2016, 11:15 AM

True. People are fed up with bleeding heart liberals. Every time you turn the tv on you are force fed celebrity chuggers asking for cash.

Posted by: user23 Oct 30 2016, 12:49 PM

Every time you turn the TV? Are you sure?

Posted by: JeffG Oct 30 2016, 03:00 PM

Are you sure these aren't sarcastic comments?

Posted by: newres Oct 30 2016, 03:26 PM

Just the usual bitterness I'd have said.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 30 2016, 03:37 PM

Sarcasm implies the opposite so I doubt it.

Posted by: newres Oct 30 2016, 04:09 PM

I think Jeff meant hyperbole rather than sarcastic, but he voted Brexit.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 30 2016, 06:08 PM

Posted by: JeffG Oct 30 2016, 08:07 PM

No I said what I meant - I assumed he meant the opposite of what he said. Perhaps I have too high an opinion of humankind. And who are you saying voted Brexit? Are you trying to libel me?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 30 2016, 10:26 PM

At least Trumps gonna win. When the emails finally come out about the lolitta express the brown stuff will hit the fan!!! FBI chap in a no win...

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 31 2016, 12:11 AM

Be better off calling the election null and void and start again. I could put on a banana suit and STILL be a more credible candidate. For either side!