"Illegal migrants in Calais should be sent to Britain!"

[Warren]

morning all,

a couple of serious questions, and not wanting to get into a slanging match with anyone,

 

1/ would id cards be bad,? you would be able to prove at an time who you were...

 

2/ the old hot potato dna data-base, a good 95% of crime could be solved almost straight away...

 

lastly 8/8 stuff the train-spotters...

 

The main issue with ID based on DNA is that any data leak is an irreversible breach of confidentiality. You cannot take back DNA in the way you can expire and get a new ID card or passport. I think interestingly the watermark technology remains robust in securing unique document ID and when integrated correctly with photo technology is sufficient.

 

I think we need to keep the Calais problem in scale. It is a bit like dealing with a business on the internet. They can seem bigger than they are. Although they have caused a lot of disruption, the real scale of the problem is the Railway stand at Port Vale, not the the whole of Vale Park, not Old Trafford, not Wembley, not the City of Stoke on Trent in proportions.

 

As for illegal people roaming the UK, I think there are probably a lot. This includes overstaying people where right to reside has expired. The government can deal with this by making it difficult to live, do business and obtain benefits and fine employers caught employing illegals. They are doing that and we will see what happens.

 

A lot of the people I see on pictures at Calais and in other migrant situations seem viable citizens potentially. I am not offended by them wanting to come to the UK. My main opposition is the scale of immigration that has taken place the last 10 years and the fact our housing and public service resources cannot cope. I also value space I suppose and don't want to see the UK become like a Tokyo suburb.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Oh yeah great idea that one! Get the landlords to evict illegal immigrants... how about once identified as illegal the government pick them up and deport them. How are they going to be found once evicted otherwise? More idiocy from our government.

 

The point as I understand it is to give landlords an incentive not to house illegal immigrants and to act as a deterrent to those who think they can rock up here illegally and get accommodation. I don't see it as in any way replacing what the govt etc should be doing and if it deters illegals what's the issue?

[TheJoker]

The point as I understand it is to give landlords an incentive not to house illegal immigrants and to act as a deterrent to those who think they can rock up here illegally and get accommodation. I don't see it as in any way replacing what the govt etc should be doing and if it deters illegals what's the issue?

 

As i see it its a way for the government to make money by fining landlords who house people that the government should be stopping being here in the first place. They did not stop them entering or overstaying - that's ok..landlord doesnt do necessary checks ( governments job ) they get financially punished. That seem fair to you?

[Warren]

The government is implementing requirements using existing or new powers. A fine is a normal enforcement measure. It is used widely including at present against employers who might fail to carry out checks of new employees. I expect the fine will pose a reasonable deterrent and it will come with rights to refuse to housing and rights to evict that will not fall foul of other laws such as the Equality Act 2010. I have seen no evidence of unreasonableness in my review of the employment measures, albeit this is a new and separate requirement.

 

All law requires compliance and the rule of law quickly breaks down without it. There is a civil duty to provide information to detect crime for example. The idea that a uniformed person turns up at every letting to do checks sounds KGB to me apart from being logistically and financially impossible for public resources.

[Vital Spark]

It always amazes me how these immigrants can't live together in peace in their own countries, but they live in perfect harmony in Calais. Just what will these people contribute to our society?

[Warren]

It always amazes me how these immigrants can't live together in peace in their own countries, but they live in perfect harmony in Calais. Just what will these people contribute to our society?

 

How do you know they live in perfect harmony in Calais? They will be able to contribute whatever skills they come with. I was watching a program today about asylum seekers. One was granted right to reside and worked as a chef. Another with a family had been refused the right to reside. He was given £5 a day - this is the amount being withdrawn by the government. Otherwise he has to beg accommodation and rely on a food bank. But he is still here - can't go home? can't afford to go home? Happy with even this?

[For Us All]

Oh yeah great idea that one! Get the landlords to evict illegal immigrants... how about once identified as illegal the government pick them up and deport them. How are they going to be found once evicted otherwise? More idiocy from our government.

 

Apparently,if we catch them we can't deport them?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11780148/Our-Government-seems-unable-to-deport-illegal-immigrants-even-if-it-knows-where-they-are.html

[Warren]

Apparently,if we catch them we can't deport them?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11780148/Our-Government-seems-unable-to-deport-illegal-immigrants-even-if-it-knows-where-they-are.html

 

There is an issue if they are uncooperative, have destroyed all papers etc (which to be fair can happen when fleeing persecution) or the country concerned refuses to accept them back. I feel that an asylum seeker that fails to cooperate should be in the position of breaking a law so that they then suffer some downside. Put them in to detention of some sort, but of course they may see that as a good thing. Perhaps the just allowed to wander approach with no benefits or right to work etc is the best approach? It is possibly the least costly?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

As i see it its a way for the government to make money by fining landlords who house people that the government should be stopping being here in the first place. ]They did not stop them entering or overstaying - that's ok..landlord doesnt do necessary checks ( governments job ) they get financially punished. That seem fair to you?

 

Not sure what your point is...as I said "I don't see it as in any way replacing what the govt etc should be doing "

[Warren]

Not sure what your point is...as I said "I don't see it as in any way replacing what the govt etc should be doing "

 

The EU has some relevance here as it takes financial contribution from the UK and implements programmes and policies. For example there are the integration fund, the refugee fund and the returns fund. The UK through the Home Office can apply for funding through these and then local authorities, charities, educational institutions and others can bid to run projects that deliver the objectives of the funds. For example, one project I have seen was to accept women who had been tortured as refugees leading to their integration in a northern city. It is all small change relative to the scale of the international refugee problem though.

[For Us All]

I can never understand how people who enter our country illegally are entitled to legal aid paid for by the taxpayer?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I can never understand how people who enter our country illegally are entitled to legal aid paid for by the taxpayer?

 

Well if someone has fled their country rapido cos their life is in danger from some despotic regime and needs to fight a legal case to be allowed to stay here (cos we are challenging them to prove their asylum claim) having had no legal means to enter the UK (they could not exactly hang around in their own country trying to get a visa for example) how is that to be funded?

 

Surely all legitimate asylum claimants are entitled to proper legal representation to fight their case and that has to be paid for. Of course it means that some/many who are not genuine will also get legal aid and fail in their claim but that's the price we choose to pay for helping the genuine.

 

If we are to help the genuine then we'll also shell out for those that will fail in their claim..I don't suppose lawyers will take on such cases on a "no win no fee" basis :)

 

Those who have entered illegally and not claimed asylum but then seek to fight being deported when they are caught or suddenly claim asylum when faced with being deported are a different matter..I don't think they should get legal aid..if indeed they can get it

[For Us All]

An ID card already exists to a considerable degree. On employing anyone an employer has to perform checks on eligibility to work in the UK under Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The guidance is here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311668/Code_of_practice_on_preventing_illegal_working.pdf The primary document to be checked is a passport. The passport is in effect an ID card.

 

The checks seem to have been ignored in this particular case?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3190667/Immigration-cops-seize-32-firm-makes-half-UK-s-sandwiches.html

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The fact there has been a swoop and illegals will face deportation and the firm will face huge fines surely proves that the system ultimately works. Businesses know what they should do but like all aspects of the law there is scope to not to stick to it and so suffer the consequences of not doing so

 

In this case I hope the directors/owners lose out massively financially and should IMO face criminal charges too....give a clear message to employers

[For Us All]

International Health Service,is this another reason to get out of the EU?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191557/Foreigners-charge-NHS-care-country-Loophole-lets-thousands-migrants-free-treatment-card-GP.html