Ukba Needs To Kick Out A Few People, Might This Make It Harder To Get A Visa For Our Loved Ones?

[bangkockney]

Worth noting that if the UK were to join the Schengen area, as wished for by some in a recent topic, there would be no border control between France and the UK and so even more illegals would be able to get across the channel. They wouldn't even need to hide, all they'd need is the ferry fare!

Expected a bit better from you 7by7. This is just untrue.

1. Free movement applies to European Citizens

2. Members are allowed to have border checks in place where circumstances require it. Clearly the clandestine camps around Calais would qualify and this could be negotiated should the UK join.

3. You've already cited the UKBA's presence in Calais - would they suddenly go blind and not notice people leaving the camps for port?

4. The UK has already negotiated the right to pick and choose which parts of the Acquis it wishes to implement. Recognising a Schengen visa could be a good place to start.

5. There is already protection for Members in EU law against another Member state issuing huge numbers of residence permits to migrants (e.g the Italy / Tunisia issue) - borders and checks can be tightened under these circumstances.

5. Most importantly: The Agreement does not stop carriers from carrying out ID checks. If a flight has originated outside the Area but contains an in-Area leg, all passengers will be ID checked, regardless of their nationality. Just as the US places it's own requirements on airlines wishing to land on US soil, the UK could do the same for land-based carriers.

With the UKBA currently checking a minimum of 60% of people it can't stop from entering the UK, couldn't the money be used for better enforcement and removal operations? Or indeed just elsewhere.

This is what caused the major rift between Mrs May and the UKBA you might remember.

[7by7]

1) True, but once inside the Schengen area how many border controls and passport checks are there when passing from one member state to another? How did these people get to Calais in the first place? They must have entered the Schengen area somewhere.

2) This I did not know; thank you for enlightening me. But see 3).

3) They would not need to turn a blind eye were they not there. Would the government continue to fund them? Would the French still allow them?

4) The UK has indeed already implemented some parts of the agreement; but I agree with the reasons successive governments have had for not implementing it fully.

5) The people we are talking about are illegals, not just illegal in the UK but illegal in all of Europe. They don't have residence permits.

6) Can you really see the ferry companies and Eurostar agreeing to check every passenger for passports or ID cards? Think how much longer it would take to load up a car ferry if they had to do this. Do you also think they would search the back of lorries etc.? This is how most illegals get into the UK from the continent, after all.

The UKBA is underfunded, which is a major part of the problem. One has to wonder what happens to the huge fees legal migrants have to pay; fees which are supposed to fund the operations of the UKBA.

[theoldgit]

I don't doubt that you've seen some positive experiences. But there has been an impact. The fact that there has only been one study to date tells us much. It's simply been an ignored issue. Detained children have been awarded compensation for damage caused and unlawful detention.

I don't accept that Yarl's Wood would be conducive to the experiences you described. Criticism has come from several places and the Home Secretary now (finally!) has a duty of care over detained children.

Also, families are those with the least risk of absconding and therefore what is the argument for their detention as a family unit? There is also no legal limit of the time a child can be detained, something which I think is incorrect.

A developed, rich country is judged on how it treats the most vulnerable and needy. In this regard the UK falls short.

I have to defend Yarls Wood as well as other Immigration Removal Centres that detained children, I don't know if you have ever been inside Yarls Wood, but as you know, I have and I will defend it to the hilt as well as the staff that work there.

I have taken a number of people round Yarls Wood and many were amazed at the facilities there, some local people were actually pretty shocked as their own children had worse facilities in the community.

Of course detention is an unnatural environment, especially for kids, but you will also be aware that only a minority of families are detained, there is a very strict criteria for the authorising of detention, families should only be detained if there is believed to be a risk that they will abscond. As you are probably aware children haven't been held at Yarls Wood since 2010, to fulfil an election pledge by the Lib Dems, but this resulted in a substantial number of failed removals, so the UKBA have had to open a new family unit somewhere near Gatwick.

As I have said before the detaining of children is an emotive issue and should be avoided where possible, I think we agree on that, but I honestly believe it is sometimes unavoidable. It's an area overplayed, in my opinion, by some area of the press, as an example in Dungavel where children were held with their families, again they had excellent facilities and very caring staff, the local press and some local were invited to see the facilities their taxes were paying for, most people were impressed even if shocked at the standard of the facilities, a photographer took a picture of the play area but took it through a child’s safety gate, he then ran the picture under the heading of "kids behind bars", I thought it to be irresponsible.

So yes I believe there is an argument for detention of family units in cases where there is a risk of absconding, as I have said before only a minority were ever detained.

Of course detention can have an effect on children, but so can being dragged halfway across the world as an economic migrant. I think the UK has a pretty good record of the way it treats genuine asylum seekers, and can hold their head up high. You will be aware that most of these economic migrants have travelled through a number of safe countries to reach the UK, that alone falls foul of the conventions.

There was a previous poster who mentioned that some families using their kids as pawns, that is sad but true, I personally witnessed parents holding their kids over the edge of a ferry and threatened to drop if they were not allowed entry into the UK.

We are never going to agree on this issue, and maybe this isn't the place to debate it, though it is a very reasoned debate.

[bobrussell]

It is a fairly general topic title so perhaps it is a good place for this discussion!

A lot of threads get hijacked by this discussion as it is highly emotive. It is interesting to get a better range of comments than the tabloid headlines.

No amount of money will stop illegal immigration completely.

[Eff1n2ret]

Just a brief note in support of theoldgit's post #63. I can't remember dealing with child detainees beyond a few of those who claimed to be minors when they were first detained in police stations (most of them weren't minors, incidentally - I think the oldest one who made such a claim turned out to be approaching his 32nd birthday). I did however work many shifts in Haslar, which in those days was still run by the Prison Service, and spent time in several others including a spell in Campsfield during its early years. The ethos in all these places was far removed from a prison, of which I also attended several on many occasions. It's quite a popular conception that prisons are cushy places, but I never saw one where I would have wanted to be kept in overnight. Immigration Detention/Removal centres, however, are much more relaxed and informal; I always remember a young African woman with whom I held a reception interview at Campsfield who said "Oh yes, sir, I don't like to be detained, but it's very nice here."

That is the great irony of the whole thing - most detainees actually have a better standard of living inside an Immigration Removal Centre than they would in their own country, and than they probably would on the outside in the UK. What they don't have is their freedom, for the very good reason that UKBA and the courts have decided that they have no right to be in the UK and should be removed. Most children are detained as part of a family removal, and there should be little reason for a child to feel uncomfortable or frightened unless their parents induce them to be so. It is of course a standard ploy for families in such a situation to create a crisis which can eagerly be seized on by the press and various pressure groups, but it reflects unfairly on the detention staff, most of whom in my experience did a good job for not huge wages.

[7by7]

A number of posts have been deleted: The rights and wrongs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with UK immigration!

Stick to the topic, or have a posting holiday; your choice.

[DavidJames1234]

2. Members are allowed to have border checks in place where circumstances require it. Clearly the clandestine camps around Calais would qualify and this could be negotiated should the UK join.

Good point and of course very true. Though the UKBA's presence here is largely disfunctional. Perhaps not from a people smuggling perspective (though I think the catch rate would be tiny in comparison to the ones who get through).

[VisasPlus]

Just a brief note in support of theoldgit's post #63. I can't remember dealing with child detainees beyond a few of those who claimed to be minors when they were first detained in police stations (most of them weren't minors, incidentally - I think the oldest one who made such a claim turned out to be approaching his 32nd birthday). I did however work many shifts in Haslar, which in those days was still run by the Prison Service, and spent time in several others including a spell in Campsfield during its early years. The ethos in all these places was far removed from a prison, of which I also attended several on many occasions. It's quite a popular conception that prisons are cushy places, but I never saw one where I would have wanted to be kept in overnight. Immigration Detention/Removal centres, however, are much more relaxed and informal; I always remember a young African woman with whom I held a reception interview at Campsfield who said "Oh yes, sir, I don't like to be detained, but it's very nice here."

That is the great irony of the whole thing - most detainees actually have a better standard of living inside an Immigration Removal Centre than they would in their own country, and than they probably would on the outside in the UK. What they don't have is their freedom, for the very good reason that UKBA and the courts have decided that they have no right to be in the UK and should be removed. Most children are detained as part of a family removal, and there should be little reason for a child to feel uncomfortable or frightened unless their parents induce them to be so. It is of course a standard ploy for families in such a situation to create a crisis which can eagerly be seized on by the press and various pressure groups, but it reflects unfairly on the detention staff, most of whom in my experience did a good job for not huge wages.

I also worked at Haslar, John, as you know. In fact I was instrumental in setting it up as a Detention Centre. I make no judgment, but I do recall one detainee asking not to be removed from detention, back to her own country, on the grounds that she had not yet finished her English language course.

[bangkockney]

@theoldgit

@Eff1n2ret

@VisasPlus

Let me first say I'm not criticising those who work in the IDC system. My critique is not at the personal level. Like everywhere there are good and bad people. It is however the system itself that deserves debate. Indeed, the views of those working in IDCs are both positive and negative, an important point. 

However, despite the best efforts of those working in detention, detainees of all types report a number of significant concerns and they deserve to be addressed. 

There is a national immigration detention system. Yet, there is no single national service provider. Rather, the institutions are divided between a series of private security companies and HM Prison Service. 

Yet among these various groups there is little shared corporate culture and no cohesive statement of values or approach. The contractors are competitors with one another.

There is considerable variation among the removal centres in terms of their physical environment and how they are managed. 

Further, many centre managers are former prison governors, from both the public and private sectors, as are a number of the civil servants within UKBA. A number of facilities, particularly those run by HM Prison Service are former or parts of current penal institutions. It is not surprising then, that detainees often experience their detention as a form of punishment, claiming that they feel as though they are in prison. 

Also, key policies in the detention centres are based on those from prison. 

In principle detention is permitted only where there is a reasonable prospect of actual removal from the country. In practice, however, matters of deportability are often contested.

However long they are held, detainees rarely know the term of their confinement. That nobody can be sure how long anyone will be detained is a unique characteristic of immigration detention and one of its key policy challenges. The uncertainty is difficult for detainees, who find it hard to bear not knowing what will happen in their case. 

It is also demanding for those working in detention. Without a sense of the duration of their population’s stay, centre managers are unable to develop much of a regime. 

Such difficulties are compounded by the limited nature of the official justification of detention as purely a means to an end: deportation. 

But not everyone who leaves is deported. Each year, according to a recent meeting of the centre managers, around one third of those in detention are released into the UK on bail or temporary admission. A handful of people obtain the right to remain. 

It is difficult to judge the efficacy of immigration detention since beyond the removal of those without the right to remain, its aims are not clear. If we consider only its impact on the exclusion of those it houses, detention is broadly successful since in most cases, detainees are either removed/deported. Yet, not only do rates of removal and deportation vary across the institutions, but other outcomes do as well. 

In Brook House, for instance, 3500 men who passed through the centre, from April 2009 – March 2010, 57% left the country, 21% were released, and 16% were transferred to other IRCs. The remaining 6% were sent to prison or taken into police custody. 

At Campsfield House, the IMB records its statistics slightly differently. According to them, 2827 men left the institution and there were 2822 new arrivals. Less than half (42.7%) were given Removal Directions (though rather confusingly, the same report later states that 18% of removal directions failed, so it is a little unclear how many actually left). Over a third of the population (35.7%) was transferred to other establishments and one in five (21.2%) were granted temporary admission or bail.

In any case, it is not clear that it would be sufficient to judge immigration detention purely as a means to an end. For those running removal centres and designing policy, as well as for those whom they confine, the day-to-day experience of detention must also be taken into account. 

Reports from the voluntary sector, from the IMB and HM Inspector of Prisons raise a common litany of concerns, and first hand accounts are also highly critical. Such sources paint high levels of anxiety and frustration within the detained population, suggesting that more needs to be done.

For many years the prison has provided an important model for immigration removal centres. Before there were enough IRCs to hold them, asylum seekers were detained in prison. Many senior staff of the private contractors and UKBA formerly worked in prisons; the Immigration Centre Rules are based on the Prison Rules; and a number of important daily strategies and practices are also deployed in penal institutions.

The ongoing reliance on the language and policies of the criminal justice system needs to be debated, however, since immigration removal centres are not, after all, prisons. They neither claim nor aspire to rehabilitate, nor, for those already in prison, can they act as much of a deterrent. At most, then, detention centres incapacitate, a goal that the prison service and criminal courts have rejected as sufficient on its own, other than for those deemed particularly dangerous for the public good. It is highly questionable that foreigners in detention are dangerous in this way.

It is important to think about options beyond the prison. There may be more scope for non-secure housing in the community. Families, in particular, can benefit from this arrangement. 

What I hope is obvious is that we need more information about what life in immigration removal is actually like as well as more principled discussions about what these centres are meant to achieve and how effective current practices are.

After all, the costs to the tax payer are huge. 

[DavidJames1234]

Excellent post Bangkokcockney

It is not surprising then, that detainees often experience their detention as a form of punishment, claiming that they feel as though they are in prison

At the end of March, I had a letter from an ex-employee, a male Thai national, currently at the Dover IRC and the way he tells its as if the screws there all still acted like they were working in a Cat A prison!

[bangkockney]

@7by7

(I've retained the original ordering, it's not that I can't count!)

1) True, but I think a somewhat simplistic analysis. After all, mainland Europe knows that the illegal immigrants are headed for UK. It is therefore not in their interest to do anything about it. The political issues here are not insignificant.

3) In light of the unique circumstance I think yes.

4) One only needs to look at the relative growth of Schengen v UK visit visas to understand why the UK's position is harmful.

I doubt the other Schengen members would allow the UK to recognise Schengen visas without full membership. However I do not know the legal mechanics.

5) Exactly. They have no rights and their movement is easily stopped as they have no paperwork.

6) It's already a requirement when travelling by ferry to have passport and/or ID. Plenty of time spent in loading lanes for ID checks. Or even when tickets are purchased.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for checks on freight that would continue to unearth illegals.

[bangkockney]

I also worked at Haslar, John, as you know. In fact I was instrumental in setting it up as a Detention Centre. I make no judgment, but I do recall one detainee asking not to be removed from detention, back to her own country, on the grounds that she had not yet finished her English language course.

Interesting that you chose to recall this and nothing from the highly critical 2002 inspection.

[skinnymilinky]

When I worked in a nursing home we used to use an agency when we needed temporary workers to cover staff sickness and I remember I recommended that one of these agency workers who was excellent went to another agency who paid higher wages and treated their staff better. After this agency worker contacted the new agency we got a phonecall from this agency to say that this worker had a forged passport! (No wonder he was a hard-working dilligent member of the team!) On contacting the original agency that employed him to confront them they denied ever knowing the passport was forged, unsurprisingly he made a quick getaway after a warning phonecall from the agency and the next day 2 other workers due to come never appeared, they had both been on expired student visas. I actually think the student visa route is the most abused visa within the system as the government has no knowledge of where people are and no resources to look for any overstayers. I would recommend a sweep of care home agencies for a start!!

[7by7]

Racist posts and respones to them have been deletd.

[beano2274]

Something needs to be done but who is willing to do it, no-one this is the biggest problem.

Edited July 29, 2012 by beano2274

[7by7]

The UKBA enforcement teams do have a difficult job; partly because they are under funded. But they also rely on information received.

Everyone has their own views, if I was witness to a crime and it involved people illegally around then I would report it. But, if I know they are illegal and they are quiet and okay then why should I report them.

Because, as you say above, something needs to be done!

If people who know of illegal workers don't report them, then they are making enforcement more difficult and contributing the the problem.

[VisasPlus]

I also worked at Haslar, John, as you know. In fact I was instrumental in setting it up as a Detention Centre. I make no judgment, but I do recall one detainee asking not to be removed from detention, back to her own country, on the grounds that she had not yet finished her English language course.

Interesting that you chose to recall this and nothing from the highly critical 2002 inspection.

Why is it interesting ? I wasn't working there in 2002, and, in all honesty, have no idea what the inspection said. In fact I had not worked there for many years by 2002. I was happily working overseas by then, and never returned to the UK to work since.

[thaicbr]

The UKBA needs to have more authority and be able to kick those out who do not have the right visas and do it immediately, and comments about kids being in detention centres is such a pity, if their parents had the correct paperwork they would not be there, so blame the parents not the people who stick them there.

Where can they send them back too? when they have shredded their passports and countries like China deliberately delay the process of supplying replacement documents.

That one is easy .. FRANCE.

They do it to us already

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[theoldgit]

I also worked at Haslar, John, as you know. In fact I was instrumental in setting it up as a Detention Centre. I make no judgment, but I do recall one detainee asking not to be removed from detention, back to her own country, on the grounds that she had not yet finished her English language course.

Interesting that you chose to recall this and nothing from the highly critical 2002 inspection.

An Inspection that is ten years old is hardly relevant to this debate, in any case there have been a number of inspections since, some good, some not so.

As I recall Haslar was only designated as an Immigration Detention Centre in 2002 operating under Detention Centre Rules, I do know that the Detention Centre concept was not popular with the then HMCIP, and reports reflected her views.

Before 2002 Haslar was operating under Prison Rules but set up as an Immigration Detention Centre by Immigration Officers with no support from the centre and tremendous political pressure to get a centre up an running.

Edited July 30, 2012 by theoldgit

[bangkockney]

@theoldgit

@VisasPlus

With respect, you're both intelligent chaps, it should be apparent why my reply was phrased in such a way.

Being in a unique position to add something to this debate - "instrumental" in its setup - VP chose instead to give us a throw away comment of a poor objection a detainee once gave.

I don't find that particularly helpful or insightful.

[VisasPlus]

@theoldgit

@VisasPlus

With respect, you're both intelligent chaps, it should be apparent why my reply was phrased in such a way.

Being in a unique position to add something to this debate - "instrumental" in its setup - VP chose instead to give us a throw away comment of a poor objection a detainee once gave.

I don't find that particularly helpful or insightful.

With respect, I contributed a comment to the debate. I really don't care if you found it either helpful or insightful. I have very little interest in the Home Office's current, and self - made, difficulties in detention and/or primary control. The Home Office ( and the government) have never listened to the views of the people at "the coal face", and so they find themselves in the current mess. I worked in an area of immigration that was eminently successful in controlling illegal migration, but those in control decided to change the way it worked. That is, of course, their prerogative. Now I live outside of the UK, and look at the state of affairs there from afar. I have many thoughts and views on the way the current government is handling the immigration "problem" ( including the visa application processes), but as they might not be the generalIy accepted view, I don't feel that I should air them here.

Please continue the debate. I will contribute if I feel enthused enough to to do so.

[ralphsilver]

Fijian-born soldier Isimeli Baleiwai fights to stay in UK

Isimeli Baleiwai at home with his two children, aged three and six

A Fijian man who served in the British Army for 13 years is fighting to stay in the UK after being told he must leave the country by 9 August.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18940236

[edwinclapham]

Fijian-born soldier Isimeli Baleiwai fights to stay in UK

Isimeli Baleiwai at home with his two children, aged three and six

A Fijian man who served in the British Army for 13 years is fighting to stay in the UK after being told he must leave the country by 9 August.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18940236

Well after the Gurkha fiasco nothing surprises me and I feel for this guy & family. Very much so!

Jo Lumley might just be able to make Cameron squirm if thats possible, she certainly got her wicked way with that old Scot GB!

If MPs had JL's ethnics and moral conscience UK would be a far better place in which to live!

[endure]

The British government has always treated its troops like dirt:

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:

We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.

Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face

The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"

But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!