When seeking votes for the Conservative party, its leader David Cameron, now British Prime Minister, promised that if elected his government would reduce net immigration “from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands”.
Apart from an attempt to control the non-EU job seekers by a few thousand (which provoked a huge hullabaloo from employers’ organisations and some universities, the Conservative-LibDem coalition, whose programme reaffirmed the immigration commitment, seems to have done nothing. Actually they have cancelled a £500 million IT contract given to a US software company by the previous (Labour) government to provide a computerised record of people entering and leaving the country. Many people think this can be done in a few months for a tenth of Labour’s contract price, at least to cover London and the major regional airports where the vast majority of the 100 million plus of passengers depart from and arrive at.
Administration of the Immigration and Deportation Rules
No IT system however can deal with the sloppy way immigration rules are administered at the ports of entry, or for that matter with the Courts’ absurdly generous interpretation of the Human Rights Act, when asylum claims are rejected or “rights to remain” are denied by immigration adjudicators.
Case of Alandi Salimi
A recent example of the lunacy of Human Rights in the deportation field is the case of Alandi Salimi who was refused asylum. Mercifully the courts upheld his deportation to his native Iraq and he was forcibly put on a flight to Baghdad accompanied by no fewer than three UK Border Agency escorting officers.
During the flight, Alandi Salimi hit on the wheeze of refusing to leave the aircraft on its arrival at Baghdad and then accusing his escorts of assault as they tried to help Iraqi police officers get him out of the aircraft. What happened? Those not familiar with the fantastical Alice-in-Wonderland ways in which our borders are protected from those trying to break into our country will be stupefied to know that this individual having actually been deported to his own country after exhausting our over-generous systems of appeals, was returned to Britain where his lawyers immediately tried to involve the UK Independent Police Complaints Commission in his case. The High Court on July 1st refused this attempt. Nonetheless instead of ordering his immediate removal from the UK, the judges allowed him to take his case to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, though what absurdities they think the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman should consider, in what is a deportation matter, are not disclosed.
By any standards this is a gross abuse of process and taxpayer funded legal aid for which the judges involved deserve the heaviest censure.
It all goes to show, as does the next case, and innumerable others (see the post by Vindex of December 2009 – The case of Binyam Mohammed) that the judges as a caste express no regard whatsoever for the desperate wish of the British people to protect their land against people who have no moral right to be here. They prefer instead to posit an entirely subjective view of the human rights of foreigners against the right of the British people to live quietly and confidently in their own country.
The lunatic backing down in the face of Salimi’s violent resistance to being deported, even when actually in his own country, is a standing encouragement to every reasonably muscular deportee to do the same.
Border Agency letting people in with false papers
July 7th saw the conviction and imprisonment of a Nigerian citizen, Anthony Harrison, for trafficking two underage Nigerian girls out of the United Kingdom to Spain and back again. While the offences for which Harrison was convicted are bad enough, the wider question, given the coalition government’s commitment to the British people 14 months ago, is how did the two girls from the Ebo tribe in Nigeria get into Britain in the first place?
For one of the girls, the principal victim witness at Harrison’s trial, the answer is quite clear. She landed at Heathrow Airport with a passport which was easily detected as a fake, and without any visa. What happened? What is now called the UK Border Agency let her into the UK and sent her to a unit for underage asylum seekers although she didn’t apply for asylum, nor is Nigeria deemed a country like Somalia or Iran where individuals are reckoned to be at risk of persecution by their governments.
The girl left the unit and was picked up by Harrison who then sent her to Spain on an EasyJet flight with a false Dutch ID card. Despite the fact that she arrived from an EU country (Britain), the Spanish authorities refused her entry and sent her back to Britain. At age 18 she now has been granted leave to remain in the UK, has a home of her own, and plans to “go to college”. The net result is that Britain has one more immigrant she shouldn’t have and one more prisoner in our jails to be fed and looked after for 10-20 years.
What should have happened?
1 The girl should have been returned to Nigeria on the original carrier’s return flight. The airline should have been fined £2,000 for bringing someone with false papers. Freight companies are fined this amount for bringing in stowaways (even inadvertently). UK airports should require all airlines to send ahead their passenger lists with passport and visa numbers before leaving the ground.
2 The convicted criminal should be returned to Nigeria. The official who let him in, when he claimed to be a Liberian (a transparent deception) and given asylum on this basis, should be disciplined.
3 British embassies in Third World countries should not provide visas without an interview. The embassies should widely advertise this requirement, stressing that anyone caught trying to get into Britain without a valid visa and passport will be sent back and automatically refused a visa in the future.
4 The primary purpose rule, which was abolished by the new Labour government as one of its first acts in 1997, should be reinstated. This rule required foreign nationals married to British citizens to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage was not to obtain British residency. Abolition of this rule alone (by Jack Straw in 1997, then Labour Home Secretary) has been estimated to have added at least 50,000 to the total of immigration for settlement over 10 years to 2007.
5 Decisions on entry to Britain by foreign nationals, and on applications to settle or extend a visa, should be removed completely from the jurisdiction of the Courts, as should the deportation of overstayers and refused asylum seekers. This change will need repeal of the Human Rights Act as a matter of urgency and its eventual replacement by a British citizen’s Rights and Responsibilities Act, whose basic principle should be that it applies only to British citizens and patrials. Foreigners working peaceably and legally in the UK would need to have done so for at least 10 years before being qualified to apply for British citizenship.
6 Britain should refuse outright all applications for asylum and settlement for a period of 5 years, during which time those already in the country, who have been refused asylum, or otherwise are in the country illegally – possibly as many as 500,000 – should be removed. At the end of the five years the British people should vote in a referendum, on the numbers – if any – they would admit for settlement in any one year.
7 Non-contributory benefits should not be available to non-citizens who would be required to have approved health insurance. In particular, anyone expecting a baby within their visa period should be required to post a bond with the NHS for the costs of confinement and aftercare. Babies born to non-British mothers would not acquire British citizenship or residency rights thereby.
This and measure 6 will signal an end to soft touch Britain, which should be broadcast across the world. This will also signal an end to the present situation where non-British EU nationals have the same rights from the moment they set foot in Britain as British citizens have.
 The UK Border Agency is “attempting” to do this as part of its “e-borders” project, but why it should be such a problem when the US has done this for some years is a mystery.
 Those under the British Nationality Act 1981 who have a right by descent to settle in the United Kingdom. I would add to these those who otherwise are subjects of the Crown.
 Including those admitted for “family reunion reasons” a total of 48,900 in 2010 alone. Families can be reunited in their country of origin.
 At present under EU rules the UK National Health Service reimburses other EU countries for the health treatment of UK nationals in other EU countries. This should be reciprocal, but the UK (according to the Express on Sunday of 10th July) does not collect anything like the full cost to the NHS of treating other EU nationals while they are in Britain. Another example, if any more were needed of the sloppy insouciant way many in the public sector treat taxpayers’ money.