Imperial Party forum

thomas davison

The REAL migrant scandal? Politicians still pretend we control our borders - when the truth is Brussels won't let us
By Christopher Booker
PUBLISHED: 00:06, 24 July 2012 | UPDATED: 07:37, 24 July 2012
Comments (68) Share
Yesterday, yet again, we saw headline news being made by a shocking tale of incompetence and mismanagement by the UK Border Agency, the body set up in 2008 to control immigration to this country.

The backlog of cases piled up in the agency�s labyrinthine system, we are told, amounts to 276,000, equivalent to the population of Newcastle. Most of the migrants are here illegally and should have been sent home years ago.

They include 150,000 foreign workers and students still in Britain even though they were refused extensions to their visas; 101,000 untraced �asylum seekers� left over from when 450,000 �forgotten files� were discovered in 2005; and 3,900 foreign offenders released by the courts to protect their human rights.

Shambles: The UK Border Agency was established in 2008 to control immigration to this country
Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, calls the Border Agency �a Bermuda triangle� for immigrants who find it easy enough to get into Britain from anywhere in the world, but then vanish off the radar because there is no way of tracing them, let alone deporting them because they entered illegally or have broken our laws.

Scandals surrounding our immigration policy are so commonplace that we all accept it is completely out of control.

MPs like Mr Vaz � whose committee is so exasperated it is now reporting on the Border Agency�s performance every three months � regularly jump up and down asking for something to be done.

But even though it is officially predicted that within eight years Britain�s population will have increased by another five million, nothing ever happens.

Keith Vaz has called the Border Agency 'a Bermuda triangle' for immigrants
Home Secretaries from Labour�s John Reid and Charles Clarke to the Coalition�s Theresa May have faced a torrent of criticism � to which they reply with limp bureaucratic statements, promising action.

But things just go from bad to worse.

Behind this dismal picture, however, lies a much bigger story and one we are simply not being told about. The reason why our immigration policy is in such a shambles is that we do not have any control over it.

The real explanation for almost everything we find so horrifying about this mess is that virtually every aspect of our policy is no longer decided here in Britain at all, but is dictated by a morass of international rules and, above all, by those emanating from the EU.

We are familiar with the fact that, since ten more countries joined the EU in 2004, including Poland and those of formerly Communist eastern Europe, we have had to admit anyone from the 28 countries of the EU, giving them the right to live and work here and to enjoy a wide range of benefits such as our NHS and schools.

But if you examine the section of the EU�s �Europa� website headed �Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration�, you will see three pages of headings covering every conceivable aspect of immigration policy, from visa rules to our duties to asylum seekers.

As these headings make clear, the rules, many based on UN and other international agreements, cover not just the way we must treat EU citizens but how we deal with immigrants from the rest of the world.

The scandal of this is twofold. It is not just that successive governments have handed over to the EU the power to dictate every aspect of who we must admit to live and work in Britain, it is also the extent to which politicians such as Mrs May will not honestly and openly admit this.

Ministers and MPs continue to pretend that we at least have some control over immigration by what they slyly call �non-EU citizens�.

Benefits: Since ten more countries joined the European Union in 2004, we have had to admit anyone from the 28 countries of the EU - giving them the right to work and live
But the truth is that we have signed up to a vast system of international rules about how we must treat migrants, no matter where they come from � which mean that our politicians and officials, like those of the UK Border Agency, no longer have any choice but to obey them.

The reason why the Border Agency is faced with this horrifying backlog of cases involving immigrants, most of whom should no longer be here, is that in everything it does the agency tries to follow more zealously than any other country in Europe the procedures of the system we signed up to, a system so tortuously complex that it is unworkable.

And on top of this we have all the absurdities piled on us by the Human Rights Act, which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights, into British law.

It was under this act, for instance, that an Iraqi asylum seeker was allowed to stay in Britain � even though in 2003 he had left 12-year-old Amy Houston to �die like a dog� after hitting her with his car while driving with no insurance and no licence, and then running away, leaving her still conscious under the car.

To deport him, argued lawyers at a case which finally concluded in 2010, would have interfered with his right to a family life, with a partner and children whom he hadn�t even seen for several years.

A vast human rights industry has been built up on this Act, enriching hundreds of lawyers who can talk judges into an endless stream of decisions which stand common sense and justice on their heads � none more obviously crazy than those involving dangerous foreign citizens who should never have been allowed to stay here in the first place.

But the most sinister aspect about how we have ceded any control over our immigration policy to this European system lies in the purpose behind it.

Overwhelmed: UK Border control Agency carry out immigration checks. The backlog of cases piled up in the agency's system apparently amounts to 276,000
The real intention of the European system, as we can see from various EU directives and judgments by the European courts, is to undermine any sense of national identity.

The aim is to turn Europe into a melting pot of different nationalities so intermingled with each other that the one thing they have in common is their �European identity�. EU directive 2004/38, for instance, allows citizens of any EU country and their families to live freely anywhere in the EU, on the grounds that this will �strengthen the feeling of Union citizenship�, which is �one of the fundamental objectives of the Union�.

But this is equally the guiding principle behind the rules applying to all those immigrants from Asia, Africa and elsewhere who, having managed to get into Europe themselves, are then permitted under EU rules to bring in all their relatives.

The idea is that, in gratitude to the EU whose rules have allowed them to settle here, such immigrants will come to feel a sense of �European identity� � their primary loyalty being to �Europe� rather than to the country they have settled in.

The irony, as we see in Britain when Asians and Africans come to live here, is that many immigrants either feel their loyalty is still to the country they came from, or else they want to become �British�. In almost no cases do they think of themselves as �European�.

Directives: The real intention of the European system appears to be to undermine any sense of national identity
We have long recognised that almost anything the EU turns its hand to fails to work as it was intended. But never was that more evident than in the shambles it has made of its immigration policies � policies our own government has dutifully obeyed, with such catastrophic results.

Yet still our politicians refuse to explain to us where those policies come from.

When the furore broke over that Iraqi asylum seeker who was allowed to remain in Britain after so callously mowing down young Amy, David Cameron � then in opposition � promised her father that he would �scrap the Human Rights Act� to replace it with a �British Bill of Rights�.

But, of course, he could never have done anything of the sort because we are now committed to those human rights rules by our membership of the EU. And as Mr Cameron recently told us, the last thing he would ever do is campaign for Britain to leave the EU.

We must therefore accept all the consequences of that commitment � even if it means an immigration policy quite deliberately designed by the EU to destroy our identity as a nation.

We do not need a parliamnent in this country, they have no power and cannot protect the people of this countru from the diktats of our masters in the EU, this country is not ours anymore it belongs to the EU and so do you as SLAVES.
WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW REBELLION BECOMES YOUR DUTY

thomas davison · Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:12 am Post subject:

More than 60,000 �bogus� students came to UK last year as ministers are accused of having �bottled out� on the issueBy Jack Doyle
PUBLISHED: 02:09, 24 July 2012 | UPDATED: 02:09, 24 July 2012
Comments (34) Share
One in four non-EU students entering the UK last year were not genuinely attending an educational establishment
Mininsters were accused of having �bottled out� on tackling bogus students last night - as it emerged some 60,000 may have entered the country last year.

The study by the MigrationWatch think tank, based on official figures, suggests more than one in four of all non-EU students entering the country last year were not genuine.

The figures will spur demands for a further toughening of the student regime, and reinforce opposition to Lib Dem calls for students to be removed from the immigration numbers altogether.

David Cameron, under pressure from Business Secretary Vince Cable and the higher education industry, is considering taking students out of net migration statistics.

That is despite his own immigration minister saying to do so would �destroy public confidence in the Government�s immigration policy�.

Students are thought to add around 75,000 to the UK population every year - with thousands staying on illegally.

A Home Office-commissioned study conducted thousands of interviews with applicants from around the world.

Applicants were tested on their ability to speak and write English, quizzed on whether they actually intended to study and not work, and asked if they intended to return home afterwards.

The results showed nearly half of all applicants from Pakistan should have been refused, nearly 60 per cent from India, one third of those from China and 62 per cent from Burma. The vast majority were applying to study at private colleges, but nearly one in seven were university applicants.

When these proportions are applied to the number of arrivals last year from each country, it adds up to more than 63,000 who could be considered �bogus�.

From this month around 10,000 such interviews will be conducted with suspect applicants. But it emerged the question of whether a student intends to return home has been dropped.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch said: �We now have clear evidence of abuse on a major scale.

�Bogus students come here to work illegally and thus take jobs from British workers. If it is clear from the circumstances that a student is unlikely to go home, the visa should not be granted in the first place.