One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
Also, many travelled as dependents on parents passports, as indeed happened into the 1980s.
Yes. Reminds me of the fact that I used to travel on my parents' passport until the early 1990s.
(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: Theresa May took apart Corbyn’s arguments earlier in the day. So he decided he’d have another go. Shes currently taking him apart a second time. Not entirely sure what he thinks he’s doing.
Simple answer - he doesn't think she did take apart his arguments, and even he thinks she did, the important thing in any debate is clips your side can link to, I'd have thought. It's not like I'm going to watch the whole damn thing, and I'm a political wonk.
(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: Theresa May took apart Corbyn’s arguments earlier in the day. So he decided he’d have another go. Shes currently taking him apart a second time. Not entirely sure what he thinks he’s doing.
Making sure the fake news outriders can cobble together some clips for social media?
... So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence...
But they couldn't get work before that Act came into force either. And probably not benefits (or, if they could, government policy hasn't been joined up since 2006, which admittedly would not be a surprise).
So there's something very odd about this.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
Also, many travelled as dependents on parents passports, as indeed happened into the 1980s.
Some of them must surely have travelled outside of Britain as adults - on holiday to Spain, for instance?
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
I think the point here is that successive British governments, over 50 years, have been extremely sloppy about who has the right to live and work here. It's blown up now because the current government is trying to be less sloppy, but I don't see why the process can't be made dramatically simpler. Again who's got a record of National Insurance payments shouldn't need to do anything, for a starter.
The point is, surely that recent governments have effectively imposed retrospective legislation in requiring long term residents to provide documentation which many simply don’t have - despite having the right to permanent residence.
If he is genuinely fit, he should be considered for the World Cup.
Joe Hart, on the other hand, should be available to do some more Head and Shoulders commercials.
If Carroll is included in the England squad, I'll change my mind and support Big_G's suggestion of a boycott!
Dont tell Foxy
And on Windrush - utterly dreadful and Amber Rudd will be lucky to keep her job. I am ashamed that we could be even thinking of these deportations
I am no fan of taking crocked players, having seen a bit too much of it in past England squads, but if we are going to build a system centered on Kane, we do need a back up for that role. Vardy is a very different style of striker. If he stays fit (!!) then he should be up for consideration.
To be honest , if the government is correct on all its allegations against Russia .England should not be participating in this year's world cup .May and the foreign office should be advising people not to travel there.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
I think the point here is that successive British governments, over 50 years, have been extremely sloppy about who has the right to live and work here. It's blown up now because the current government is trying to be less sloppy, but I don't see why the process can't be made dramatically simpler. Again who's got a record of National Insurance payments shouldn't need to do anything, for a starter.
An obvious solution would be to only apply the legislation to anyone who came here less than say 20 years ago.
... So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence...
But they couldn't get work before that Act came into force either. And probably not benefits (or, if they could, government policy hasn't been joined up since 2006, which admittedly would not be a surprise).
So there's something very odd about this.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
Also, many travelled as dependents on parents passports, as indeed happened into the 1980s.
Some of them must surely have travelled outside of Britain as adults - on holiday to Spain, for instance?
It's only a minority who don't have passports, probably.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
Also, many travelled as dependents on parents passports, as indeed happened into the 1980s.
Some of them must surely have travelled outside of Britain as adults - on holiday to Spain, for instance?
Yes, and those that did are presumably in no danger.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
I think the point here is that successive British governments, over 50 years, have been extremely sloppy about who has the right to live and work here. It's blown up now because the current government is trying to be less sloppy, but I don't see why the process can't be made dramatically simpler. Again who's got a record of National Insurance payments shouldn't need to do anything, for a starter.
An obvious solution would be to only apply the legislation to anyone who came here less than say 20 years ago.
That would be entirely sensible.
How do these people prove that they came here greater than 20 years ago?
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
Also, many travelled as dependents on parents passports, as indeed happened into the 1980s.
Some of them must surely have travelled outside of Britain as adults - on holiday to Spain, for instance?
Or back to the West Indies to see other members of their family.
I imagine over 90% have had British passports at some time and the issue only affects a tiny minority.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
I think the point here is that successive British governments, over 50 years, have been extremely sloppy about who has the right to live and work here. It's blown up now because the current government is trying to be less sloppy, but I don't see why the process can't be made dramatically simpler. Again who's got a record of National Insurance payments shouldn't need to do anything, for a starter.
An obvious solution would be to only apply the legislation to anyone who came here less than say 20 years ago.
That would be entirely sensible.
How do these people prove that they came here greater than 20 years ago?
NI records, council tax records, PAYE payments, pension payments, doctors records ...
... So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence...
But they couldn't get work before that Act came into force either. And probably not benefits (or, if they could, government policy hasn't been joined up since 2006, which admittedly would not be a surprise).
So there's something very odd about this.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
How many carwashes have had that £10k fine ?
In my experience its mainly been carryout restaurants, pubs and delivery firms that have been hit. I suppose a squad of car washers doesn't necessarily have an employer with assets you can get the money off.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
I think it's completely wrong - it should be 100% the government's responsibility to decide who is legally here, with an NI number being the only check the employer should need to make.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
That is exactly what the government has done.
Yet, the local car wash in Hampstead is still entirely staffed by Albanians. Who - I presume - came here on tourist visas and did not return.
Aside from the illegal immigration issue I wonder how many employment and tax laws are being broken at that car wash.
If he is genuinely fit, he should be considered for the World Cup.
Joe Hart, on the other hand, should be available to do some more Head and Shoulders commercials.
If Carroll is included in the England squad, I'll change my mind and support Big_G's suggestion of a boycott!
Dont tell Foxy
And on Windrush - utterly dreadful and Amber Rudd will be lucky to keep her job. I am ashamed that we could be even thinking of these deportations
I am no fan of taking crocked players, having seen a bit too much of it in past England squads, but if we are going to build a system centered on Kane, we do need a back up for that role. Vardy is a very different style of striker. If he stays fit (!!) then he should be up for consideration.
To be honest , if the government is correct on all its allegations against Russia .England should not be participating in this year's world cup .May and the foreign office should be advising people not to travel there.
There is no evidence of danger to football fans, or indeed other British tourists. Indeed the Arsenal fans in Moscow last week were given free Russian hats.
Withdrawing from the World Cup would ban us from further World Cups. It is in the FIFA rules.
We have an argument with the government, not the people.
... So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence...
But they couldn't get work before that Act came into force either. And probably not benefits (or, if they could, government policy hasn't been joined up since 2006, which admittedly would not be a surprise).
So there's something very odd about this.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
How many carwashes have had that £10k fine ?
In my experience its mainly been carryout restaurants, pubs and delivery firms that have been hit. I suppose a squad of car washers doesn't necessarily have an employer with assets you can get the money off.
Carwashes operate from premises and many have been around for years.
Quite aside from its rampant corruption, exploitation of ordinary Russians and aggression, it routinely murders its critics in horrific ways.
Define "corruption" - it doesn't equate to evil per se. We've had corruption here, so has America, so indeed have most countries and in many parts of the world it's endemic. It's how things are done - we don't approve of it but it's not evil in and of itself.
"Exploitation of ordinary Russians" - there are those who consider capitalism exploitative. What does exploitation mean - excessive taxation might be considered exploitation.
"Aggression" - arguably Russia has been expansionist since Peter the Great. Has it been evil for over 300 years ? Was it evil when it drove back the Nazis ?
"Murders its critics" - I agree it's distasteful and abhorrent but the Russians are far from alone in that. I do agree accepting and being open to criticism is a strength and virtue of a civilised society but plenty aren't. Are they all evil ?
I accept the Russian way of doing things as antithetical to how we purport to operate but throwing words like "evil" around doesn't help. It's part and parcel of a tactic of demonisation we saw in the Cold War. We are being taught again to see the Russians as monsters, bereft of humanity, determined on the single goal of our subjugation.
It was absurd then, it's absurd now.
You seem to think that there was no basis for fearing Russia during the Cold War. There was every reason for fearing a country which murdered so many of its citizens, whether through shootings, torture, appalling neglect in camps or famine, which deliberately and viciously subjugated Eastern Europe for half a century and which would have gone further if not deterred and which sought to undermine democratic states through sister communist parties and other organisations funded by Russia.
Whether evil is the right term is a matter of debate. But that Russia was not a friendly state - and was aggressive when it could get away with it - during Communist rule and appears to have reverted to this now under Putin is indisputable rather than absurd.
We do not need to demonise a country but we do well to be clear-eyed about how it has behaved and is behaving now.
If he is genuinely fit, he should be considered for the World Cup.
Joe Hart, on the other hand, should be available to do some more Head and Shoulders commercials.
If Carroll is included in the England squad, I'll change my mind and support Big_G's suggestion of a boycott!
Dont tell Foxy
And on Windrush - utterly dreadful and Amber Rudd will be lucky to keep her job. I am ashamed that we could be even thinking of these deportations
I am no fan of taking crocked players, having seen a bit too much of it in past England squads, but if we are going to build a system centered on Kane, we do need a back up for that role. Vardy is a very different style of striker. If he stays fit (!!) then he should be up for consideration.
To be honest , if the government is correct on all its allegations against Russia .England should not be participating in this year's world cup .May and the foreign office should be advising people not to travel there.
There is no evidence of danger to football fans, or indeed other British tourists. Indeed the Arsenal fans in Moscow last week were given free Russian hats.
Withdrawing from the World Cup would ban us from further World Cups. It is in the FIFA rules.
We have an argument with the government, not the people.
Perhaps we could convince the USA to bring charges against FIFA under RICO. That would prevent TV organisations trading with them and would cut off FIFA's income stream.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
I think it's completely wrong - it should be 100% the government's responsibility to decide who is legally here, with an NI number being the only check the employer should need to make.
I’ve had to evidence my right to work in the U.K. for every job I’ve had. It’s really not that onerous. Do you think HMRC should be responsible if individuals fail to pay tax in accordance with their obligations?
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
That is exactly what the government has done.
Yet, the local car wash in Hampstead is still entirely staffed by Albanians. Who - I presume - came here on tourist visas and did not return.
Aside from the illegal immigration issue I wonder how many employment and tax laws are being broken at that car wash.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
I think it's completely wrong - it should be 100% the government's responsibility to decide who is legally here, with an NI number being the only check the employer should need to make.
NI numbers are for life though, visas aren't always.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
Also, many travelled as dependents on parents passports, as indeed happened into the 1980s.
Some of them must surely have travelled outside of Britain as adults - on holiday to Spain, for instance?
Or back to the West Indies to see other members of their family.
I imagine over 90% have had British passports at some time and the issue only affects a tiny minority.
But if you are in that 'tiny minority' you are 100% affected.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
I think it's completely wrong - it should be 100% the government's responsibility to decide who is legally here, with an NI number being the only check the employer should need to make.
NI numbers are for life though, visas aren't always.
Yes, but the government issues the visas. They could join up the dots, so that employers could check the status within 30 seconds on a website. Why in heaven's name is anything else needed?
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
Also, many travelled as dependents on parents passports, as indeed happened into the 1980s.
Some of them must surely have travelled outside of Britain as adults - on holiday to Spain, for instance?
Or back to the West Indies to see other members of their family.
I imagine over 90% have had British passports at some time and the issue only affects a tiny minority.
But if you are in that 'tiny minority' you are 100% affected.
Obviously people shouldn't be punished because they haven't travelled outside the country.
... So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence...
But they couldn't get work before that Act came into force either. And probably not benefits (or, if they could, government policy hasn't been joined up since 2006, which admittedly would not be a surprise).
So there's something very odd about this.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
How many carwashes have had that £10k fine ?
In my experience its mainly been carryout restaurants, pubs and delivery firms that have been hit. I suppose a squad of car washers doesn't necessarily have an employer with assets you can get the money off.
Carwashes operate from premises and many have been around for years.
Weirdly the focus seems to be on businesses with lots of employees with different coloured skin.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
I think it's completely wrong - it should be 100% the government's responsibility to decide who is legally here, with an NI number being the only check the employer should need to make.
I’ve had to evidence my right to work in the U.K. for every job I’ve had. It’s really not that onerous. Do you think HMRC should be responsible if individuals fail to pay tax in accordance with their obligations?
No, I think it should be exactly like PAYE - if HMRC screw up the tax code, it's not the employer's problem as long as they apply the code they've been given.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
I think it's completely wrong - it should be 100% the government's responsibility to decide who is legally here, with an NI number being the only check the employer should need to make.
NI numbers are for life though, visas aren't always.
Yes, but the government issues the visas. They could join up the dots, so that employers could check the status within 30 seconds on a website. Why in heaven's name is anything else needed?
I misunderstood you, I thought you meant just check that they have an NI number. I think what you're advocating is a way for employers to check that a given NI number is valid for employment. The US has something like that, e-Verify, but it has issues, and the UK government's track record on major IT projects is, well ...
It seems to me that, with all due respect to @DavidL’s post upthread, it is not the positive obligations which the legislation imposes which are the problem (they don’t strike me as particularly illiberal) but that the legislation completely failed to make effective provision for those people already lawfully here to be able easily to get proof of their British citizenship/right to live here so as to avoid problems in future.
Debate still going on with shouty Corbyn winding up to silence and TM has just rose to conclude the debate to a huge cheer. She has been answering questions since 4.00 pm . That takes some stamina
Seriously, they've still been going all this time? Jesus. Longest meeting I've done was around six hours, and all I had to do was take notes, and it was still knackering.
I was once deposed in a case and spent almost eight hours answering lawyers questions. It's fair to say I was sick of the sound of my own voice by the end of it.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
So, the real problem - then - is that we don't do a very good job of dealing with truly "underground" enterprises.
It seems to me that, with all due respect to @DavidL’s post upthread, it is not the positive obligations which the legislation imposes which are the problem (they don’t strike me as particularly illiberal) but that the legislation completely failed to make effective provision for those people already lawfully here to be able easily to get proof of their British citizenship/right to live here so as to avoid problems in future.
Indeed.
And then was applied in an incompetent and callous manner.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
I think the point here is that successive British governments, over 50 years, have been extremely sloppy about who has the right to live and work here. It's blown up now because the current government is trying to be less sloppy, but I don't see why the process can't be made dramatically simpler. Again who's got a record of National Insurance payments shouldn't need to do anything, for a starter.
An obvious solution would be to only apply the legislation to anyone who came here less than say 20 years ago.
That would be entirely sensible.
How do these people prove that they came here greater than 20 years ago?
NI records, council tax records, PAYE payments, pension payments, doctors records ...
Supply three of the following six forms of accepted documentation: tax returns, NI statements, bank statements, utility bills, marriage certificate, birth certificate etc.
... So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence...
But they couldn't get work before that Act came into force either. And probably not benefits (or, if they could, government policy hasn't been joined up since 2006, which admittedly would not be a surprise).
So there's something very odd about this.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
How many carwashes have had that £10k fine ?
In my experience its mainly been carryout restaurants, pubs and delivery firms that have been hit. I suppose a squad of car washers doesn't necessarily have an employer with assets you can get the money off.
But, presumably, there is a landlord who is responsible.
The Act imposes a whole series of duties on employers, landlords, banks, schools etc etc to document and be in a position to vouch every employee. They need to certify that they have seen original documents which they have to date and keep for instant inspection. It’s a £10k fine for each employee you don’t have the records for. It is a fine by statute, no court case is required.
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
I think it's completely wrong - it should be 100% the government's responsibility to decide who is legally here, with an NI number being the only check the employer should need to make.
I’ve had to evidence my right to work in the U.K. for every job I’ve had. It’s really not that onerous. Do you think HMRC should be responsible if individuals fail to pay tax in accordance with their obligations?
No, I think it should be exactly like PAYE - if HMRC screw up the tax code, it's not the employer's problem as long as they apply the code they've been given.
That doesn't necessarily stop the employee pestering the employer to sort out their incorrect tax code.
The casual assumption various government agencies have that employers should be unpaid debt collectors also needs changing.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
I think the point here is that successive British governments, over 50 years, have been extremely sloppy about who has the right to live and work here. It's blown up now because the current government is trying to be less sloppy, but I don't see why the process can't be made dramatically simpler. Again who's got a record of National Insurance payments shouldn't need to do anything, for a starter.
An obvious solution would be to only apply the legislation to anyone who came here less than say 20 years ago.
That would be entirely sensible.
How do these people prove that they came here greater than 20 years ago?
NI records, council tax records, PAYE payments, pension payments, doctors records ...
Supply three of the following six forms of accepted documentation: tax returns, NI statements, bank statements, utility bills, marriage certificate, birth certificate etc.
It doesn't seem to be as simple as that, even if you once held a British passport, and lived here for 60 years:
Just had a chance to catch up on the Syria debate.
Cannot continue to have a PLP that is so out of touch with the Membership IMO.
Think Corbyn is going to have to withdraw the whip from the worst offenders like Woodcock and Gapes. If they want to cross the floor so be it but their position in modern Labour is becoming untenable.
Mandatory dereliction is becoming inevitable after the behaviour of some in last month.
Cohen was trying to prevent disclosure of that on the grounds it might be embarrassing for his client... Would that be for Trump, or Hannity ?
This just gets worse. What beats me is how Cohen seems to be doing free work for this guy and AND giving over 130k of his own cash to help Trump. This man is Mother Theresa to his mates.
Whats more of note overall:
For Hannity: Those hotel trips and calls with Russian Intelligence front men. For Cohen: Prague 2016 that he denies even being there. Doing what and meeting who
Just had a chance to catch up on the Syria debate.
Cannot continue to have a PLP that is so out of touch with the Membership IMO.
Think Corbyn is going to have to withdraw the whip from the worst offenders like Woodcock and Gapes. If they want to cross the floor so be it but their position in modern Labour is becoming untenable.
Mandatory dereliction is becoming inevitable after the behaviour of some in last month.
Just had a chance to catch up on the Syria debate.
Cannot continue to have a PLP that is so out of touch with the Membership IMO.
Think Corbyn is going to have to withdraw the whip from the worst offenders like Woodcock and Gapes. If they want to cross the floor so be it but their position in modern Labour is becoming untenable.
Mandatory dereliction is becoming inevitable after the behaviour of some in last month.
Nah, dissent should be tolerated within a party.
I oppose the gesture bombing, but it actually seems to be being seen on all sides as a symbolic act, rather than a war one, and will not be repeated.
Just had a chance to catch up on the Syria debate.
Cannot continue to have a PLP that is so out of touch with the Membership IMO.
Think Corbyn is going to have to withdraw the whip from the worst offenders like Woodcock and Gapes. If they want to cross the floor so be it but their position in modern Labour is becoming untenable.
Mandatory dereliction is becoming inevitable after the behaviour of some in last month.
4 films on the same day?
Worst one was quiet place. Beast was good. Not even about Dennis!
Just had a chance to catch up on the Syria debate.
Cannot continue to have a PLP that is so out of touch with the Membership IMO.
Think Corbyn is going to have to withdraw the whip from the worst offenders like Woodcock and Gapes. If they want to cross the floor so be it but their position in modern Labour is becoming untenable.
Mandatory dereliction is becoming inevitable after the behaviour of some in last month.
Assuming you meant deselection, why? Apart from Woodcock the others will still make Corbyn PM, so rebellion can be tolerated, as indeed Corbyn's rebellions could. Yes they cause him grief on foreign affairs, but so what? Deselect and they will have nothing to lose, whereas at present they still back him on most things.
Just had a chance to catch up on the Syria debate.
Cannot continue to have a PLP that is so out of touch with the Membership IMO.
Think Corbyn is going to have to withdraw the whip from the worst offenders like Woodcock and Gapes. If they want to cross the floor so be it but their position in modern Labour is becoming untenable.
Mandatory dereliction is becoming inevitable after the behaviour of some in last month.
The problem today was a rebellion by many and tonight the labour benches were near empty behind Corbyn on his summing up but near full behind TM. He is today's big loser sorry to say BJO
Just had a chance to catch up on the Syria debate.
Cannot continue to have a PLP that is so out of touch with the Membership IMO.
Think Corbyn is going to have to withdraw the whip from the worst offenders like Woodcock and Gapes. If they want to cross the floor so be it but their position in modern Labour is becoming untenable.
Mandatory dereliction is becoming inevitable after the behaviour of some in last month.
Nah, dissent should be tolerated within a party.
I oppose the gesture bombing, but it actually seems to be being seen on all sides as a symbolic act, rather than a war one, and will not be repeated.
That was not promised by TM and she retains her executive powers after these debates
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
I think the point here is that successive British governments, over 50 years, have been extremely sloppy about who has the right to live and work here. It's blown up now because the current government is trying to be less sloppy, but I don't see why the process can't be made dramatically simpler. Again who's got a record of National Insurance payments shouldn't need to do anything, for a starter.
An obvious solution would be to only apply the legislation to anyone who came here less than say 20 years ago.
That would be entirely sensible.
How do these people prove that they came here greater than 20 years ago?
NI records, council tax records, PAYE payments, pension payments, doctors records ...
Supply three of the following six forms of accepted documentation: tax returns, NI statements, bank statements, utility bills, marriage certificate, birth certificate etc.
It doesn't seem to be as simple as that, even if you once held a British passport, and lived here for 60 years:
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
It's more subtle than that. It used to be that the British Empire was one homogeneous lump spread over many lands. Then as the years progressed bits of it became defined as distinct entities: Dominions were invented, colonies became Colonies. The UK as a distinct state separate from the Empire is a post-WWII concept: prior to that it was simply one amongst many, although primus inter pares may be more accurate.
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
Without the hand carwash industry we'll be doomed.
And I rather suspect we'd be better off without Amazon's sweatshops.
But if this country ever lives within its means then we say bye-bye to thousands upon thousands of migrant workers in wealth consuming service sector jobs.
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
Without the hand carwash industry we'll be doomed.
And I rather suspect we'd be better off without Amazon's sweatshops.
But if this country ever lives within its means then we say bye-bye to thousands upon thousands of migrant workers in wealth consuming service sector jobs.
You have this concept that if an immigrant cleans your car, that destroys wealth. I can't help thinking the owner of the car would disagree, as he has traded a dirty car and a coin for a clean car. Trade voluntarily entered into by both parties creates wealth, not destroys it.
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
Without the hand carwash industry we'll be doomed.
And I rather suspect we'd be better off without Amazon's sweatshops.
But if this country ever lives within its means then we say bye-bye to thousands upon thousands of migrant workers in wealth consuming service sector jobs.
You have this concept that if an immigrant cleans your car, that destroys wealth. I can't help thinking the owner of the car would disagree, as he has traded a dirty car and a coin for a clean car. Trade voluntarily entered into by both parties creates wealth, not destroys it.
Actually if that money is subsequently remitted to for example Albania it is wealth which has been transferred out of this country.
And I suggest it might be better if a few lardarses washed their own cars instead of paying people employed in an industry notorious for illegal employment and tax evasion.
My view is that immigration law - like drug and prostitution law - is the wrong way around.
If you want to stop drug use, criminalise the users. If you want to stop prostitution, criminalise the johns. If you want to stop illegal immigration, criminalise employing illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants come here because there is a large black market, where there are no checks on status. If you come and wash up in a kitchen in Brick Lane, and are paid in cash, no one knows if you are supposed to be here or not. And all too often fines are derisory.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
Criminalizing drug users has already been tried all over the place and failed.
The right answer in all three cases is for the government to stop interfering with voluntary interactions that don't harm anyone else.
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
Without the hand carwash industry we'll be doomed.
And I rather suspect we'd be better off without Amazon's sweatshops.
But if this country ever lives within its means then we say bye-bye to thousands upon thousands of migrant workers in wealth consuming service sector jobs.
You have this concept that if an immigrant cleans your car, that destroys wealth. I can't help thinking the owner of the car would disagree, as he has traded a dirty car and a coin for a clean car. Trade voluntarily entered into by both parties creates wealth, not destroys it.
Actually if that money is subsequently remitted to for example Albania it is wealth which has been transferred out of this country.
And I suggest it might be better if a few lardarses washed their own cars instead of paying people employed in an industry notorious for illegal employment and tax evasion.
If the gain from the clean car outweighs the coin, then no it doesn't matter if the coin ends up in Albania (think of it as a virtual import). You could argue that a Brit could have cleaned the car, but that Brit was off doing something else which he thought was a better use of his time. So everybody gained and wealth went up.
As for your remark about lardarses: you may well be right, but the lardarses did not agree with you, and they assessed the trade as worth the coin: their wealth went up. That's the advantage of capitalism and free trade: the use of money crystallizes many possible virtual decisions into one actual decision and simultaneously measures its value, and because both parties did so voluntarily the wealth of both increased.
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
The immigration rules currently discriminate against people from Africa, Americas and Asia (mostly non white) and in favour of Europeans (mostly white).
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
The immigration rules currently discriminate against people from Africa, Americas and Asia (mostly non white) and in favour of Europeans (mostly white).
Is that a good thing?
Fair point. Would you address the disparity by a) making it easier for Africa/Americas/Asians to enter, or b) making it harder for Europeans to enter?
And (after your adjustment), would there be a) less people coming in per year, or b) more people coming in per year?
Syria report missiles fired on airfield - no confirmation
Linky?
Israeli
There seems enough reporting from viable Syrian state sources to suggest this is indeed a live and ongoing event. At least two, possibly three locations. One did have Russian presence, if not at the moment after some consolidation in advance of the Friday night strikes.
The freedom with which the Israelis are doing this, assuming they are at work, is a huge headache for Russia. They have let the Israelis get on because they just do not want to tangle with them. Its the one country with the will and means to change the dynamic and Russia has not got the expeditionary warfare capability to stop them.
Assuming it is Israeli raids, you would guess they are doing it in response to Iranian and Hezbollah threats that they will retaliate for the recent Israeli strike on T4. The Israelis have a ridiculously comprehensive knowledge of where to go and what to hit. Standard Israeli practice, defence means getting your punch in first.
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
It's more subtle than that. It used to be that the British Empire was one homogeneous lump spread over many lands. Then as the years progressed bits of it became defined as distinct entities: Dominions were invented, colonies became Colonies. The UK as a distinct state separate from the Empire is a post-WWII concept: prior to that it was simply one amongst many, although primus inter pares may be more accurate.
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
It's more subtle than that. It used to be that the British Empire was one homogeneous lump spread over many lands. Then as the years progressed bits of it became defined as distinct entities: Dominions were invented, colonies became Colonies. The UK as a distinct state separate from the Empire is a post-WWII concept: prior to that it was simply one amongst many, although primus inter pares may be more accurate.
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
The immigration rules currently discriminate against people from Africa, Americas and Asia (mostly non white) and in favour of Europeans (mostly white).
Is that a good thing?
Is saying "no blacks, no irish", better than saying "no blacks"?
My view is that immigration law - like drug and prostitution law - is the wrong way around.
If you want to stop drug use, criminalise the users. If you want to stop prostitution, criminalise the johns. If you want to stop illegal immigration, criminalise employing illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants come here because there is a large black market, where there are no checks on status. If you come and wash up in a kitchen in Brick Lane, and are paid in cash, no one knows if you are supposed to be here or not. And all too often fines are derisory.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
Criminalizing drug users has already been tried all over the place and failed.
The right answer in all three cases is for the government to stop interfering with voluntary interactions that don't harm anyone else.
That is, indeed, the alternative. And was the policy of the British government from about 1860 to 1914.
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
The immigration rules currently discriminate against people from Africa, Americas and Asia (mostly non white) and in favour of Europeans (mostly white).
Is that a good thing?
All immigration systems discriminate on basis of country of origin, because it is a useful heuristic.
My view is that immigration law - like drug and prostitution law - is the wrong way around.
If you want to stop drug use, criminalise the users. If you want to stop prostitution, criminalise the johns. If you want to stop illegal immigration, criminalise employing illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants come here because there is a large black market, where there are no checks on status. If you come and wash up in a kitchen in Brick Lane, and are paid in cash, no one knows if you are supposed to be here or not. And all too often fines are derisory.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
Criminalizing drug users has already been tried all over the place and failed.
The right answer in all three cases is for the government to stop interfering with voluntary interactions that don't harm anyone else.
That is, indeed, the alternative. And was the policy of the British government from about 1860 to 1914.
I like that framing, a Victorian Immigration Policy sounds like an easier thing to sell to British voters than Open Door.
My view is that immigration law - like drug and prostitution law - is the wrong way around.
If you want to stop drug use, criminalise the users. If you want to stop prostitution, criminalise the johns. If you want to stop illegal immigration, criminalise employing illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants come here because there is a large black market, where there are no checks on status. If you come and wash up in a kitchen in Brick Lane, and are paid in cash, no one knows if you are supposed to be here or not. And all too often fines are derisory.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
Criminalizing drug users has already been tried all over the place and failed.
The right answer in all three cases is for the government to stop interfering with voluntary interactions that don't harm anyone else.
That is, indeed, the alternative. And was the policy of the British government from about 1860 to 1914.
I like that framing, a Victorian Immigration Policy sounds like an easier thing to sell to British voters than Open Door.
In those days, prime ministers took the fight against prostitution to the front line, personally going to meet with fallen women and persuade them of their ways.
Syria report missiles fired on airfield - no confirmation
Is that a US, a UK, a French, a Kurdish, an Israeli, a Hezbollah, a Russian, an Iranian, a Turkish, an IS, a Syrian Govt, a Syrian free rebel, an Ahead Al Sham, an Al Nusra, one of the other alphabet soup Islamic groups missile or someone else though ?
Morning All, Not many early risers this morning. I see there are reports of a further missile strike on Syria. Israel not satisfied with the West's surgical strikes?
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
That’s precisely the issue.
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
Cohen was trying to prevent disclosure of that on the grounds it might be embarrassing for his client... Would that be for Trump, or Hannity ?
This just gets worse. What beats me is how Cohen seems to be doing free work for this guy and AND giving over 130k of his own cash to help Trump. This man is Mother Theresa to his mates.
Whats more of note overall:
For Hannity: Those hotel trips and calls with Russian Intelligence front men. For Cohen: Prague 2016 that he denies even being there. Doing what and meeting who
Just had a chance to catch up on the Syria debate.
Cannot continue to have a PLP that is so out of touch with the Membership IMO.
Think Corbyn is going to have to withdraw the whip from the worst offenders like Woodcock and Gapes. If they want to cross the floor so be it but their position in modern Labour is becoming untenable.
Mandatory dereliction is becoming inevitable after the behaviour of some in last month.
“Mandatory dereliction” sounds ominous. What’s it entail?
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
That’s precisely the issue.
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
What were the rules about Commonwealth citizens coming here before about 1979 or so. It seems that dependent children didn’t seem to be listed. I may well be wrong, but I can’t recall my children having passports when we went on holiday to Portugal in the early 70’s.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
That’s precisely the issue.
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
The perversity is that those people who have never left the country, since they legally arrived as children before 1973, are the people who are finding it hardest got price eligibility.
There have been major changes in the regulations over the years, and requirements to have documentation are applied retrospectively.
The government is rightly being hauled over the coals on this.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
That’s precisely the issue.
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
A friend of my dad's didn't get a passport until he was in his 60s. His wife is Irish, but he never needed a passport for going over there to see her family. It was only because he fancied going on booze cruise to France with his mates that he applied for one.
Anyway, he had to go to some place in Croydon for an intensive interview. Eventually after hours going through the records he brought with him they decided that he was entitled to a passport. But it wasn't as straightforward as "here's my birth certificate, here's my NI number", which he had.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
That’s precisely the issue.
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
A friend of my dad's didn't get a passport until he was in his 60s. His wife is Irish, but he never needed a passport for going over there to see her family. It was only because he fancied going on booze cruise to France with his mates that he applied for one.
Anyway, he had to go to some place in Croydon for an intensive interview. Eventually after hours going through the records he brought with him they decided that he was entitled to a passport. But it wasn't as straightforward as "here's my birth certificate, here's my NI number", which he had.
In my view (and this is a response to @OldKingCole and @foxy as well) they need to look at the proof required.
A history of NI payments should be sufficient, or other factors. But it’s an administrative adjustment rather than some massive change.
Based on the press reports these are the kind of hard working individuals who have demonstrated commitment to this country and have made a contribution. They’ve earned their right to be be here.
But it’s not unreasonable to ask them to regularise the situation
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
That’s precisely the issue.
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
A friend of my dad's didn't get a passport until he was in his 60s. His wife is Irish, but he never needed a passport for going over there to see her family. It was only because he fancied going on booze cruise to France with his mates that he applied for one.
Anyway, he had to go to some place in Croydon for an intensive interview. Eventually after hours going through the records he brought with him they decided that he was entitled to a passport. But it wasn't as straightforward as "here's my birth certificate, here's my NI number", which he had.
In my view (and this is a response to @OldKingCole and @foxy as well) they need to look at the proof required.
A history of NI payments should be sufficient, or other factors. But it’s an administrative adjustment rather than some massive change.
Based on the press reports these are the kind of hard working individuals who have demonstrated commitment to this country and have made a contribution. They’ve earned their right to be be here.
But it’s not unreasonable to ask them to regularise the situation
NI payments are already on a govt database. So just a case of internal govt communication
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
That’s precisely the issue.
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
A friend of my dad's didn't get a passport until he was in his 60s. His wife is Irish, but he never needed a passport for going over there to see her family. It was only because he fancied going on booze cruise to France with his mates that he applied for one.
Anyway, he had to go to some place in Croydon for an intensive interview. Eventually after hours going through the records he brought with him they decided that he was entitled to a passport. But it wasn't as straightforward as "here's my birth certificate, here's my NI number", which he had.
In my view (and this is a response to @OldKingCole and @foxy as well) they need to look at the proof required.
A history of NI payments should be sufficient, or other factors. But it’s an administrative adjustment rather than some massive change.
Based on the press reports these are the kind of hard working individuals who have demonstrated commitment to this country and have made a contribution. They’ve earned their right to be be here.
But it’s not unreasonable to ask them to regularise the situation
NI payments are already on a govt database. So just a case of internal govt communication
Yes. And it may be that we want a general rule that - say - 30 years of contributions (which I believe is the max you need for a state pension) would quality you for citizenship as well
Talking of immigration, I see that the trainee gp from Singapore has been allowed to stay, however the guardian report was yet again very misleading.
They inferred he was being deported because he filed his visa paperwork a few weeks late, when in fact it was because the rules stated he needed 10 years of being legally resident here and he did not meet that criteria. And the guardian just happened to forget to mention that rather crucial factor.
Summary: the referendum campaign was won with a conscious policy of pandering to xenophobia. As I have been known to say on the odd occasion.
At some point Leave advocates are going to have to start thinking about what this means for the future of this country.
Firstly, we are talking about an unofficial minority group involved in the campaign, equivalent to someone like Operation Black Vote on the other side.
Secondly, the actual quotes don't justify your summary at all. All the quotes say is they were provocative and used immigration as an issue. I know you think all campaigning against immigration is "pandering to xenophobia" but it isn't true.
On-topic: BBC report at ten last night weirdly had lots of backbenchers speaking, mostly critical of lack of vote before strikes, but none of the Labour backbenchers laying into Corbyn.
Comments
The consequences of this for small businesses who may not be good with paperwork or who employ a lazy or incompetent manager can be catastrophic.
You may think tough but what is obvious is that those without papers are driven deep underground making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and brutality.
I imagine over 90% have had British passports at some time and the issue only affects a tiny minority.
Withdrawing from the World Cup would ban us from further World Cups. It is in the FIFA rules.
We have an argument with the government, not the people.
Whether evil is the right term is a matter of debate. But that Russia was not a friendly state - and was aggressive when it could get away with it - during Communist rule and appears to have reverted to this now under Putin is indisputable rather than absurd.
We do not need to demonise a country but we do well to be clear-eyed about how it has behaved and is behaving now.
He is a personal friend
(only kidding!)
And then was applied in an incompetent and callous manner.
The casual assumption various government agencies have that employers should be unpaid debt collectors also needs changing.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/16/former-middlesex-fast-bowler-in-immigration-limbo-for-seven-years
Just had a chance to catch up on the Syria debate.
Cannot continue to have a PLP that is so out of touch with the Membership IMO.
Think Corbyn is going to have to withdraw the whip from the worst offenders like Woodcock and Gapes. If they want to cross the floor so be it but their position in modern Labour is becoming untenable.
Mandatory dereliction is becoming inevitable after the behaviour of some in last month.
Whats more of note overall:
For Hannity: Those hotel trips and calls with Russian Intelligence front men.
For Cohen: Prague 2016 that he denies even being there. Doing what and meeting who
This is going to be a complete shit fest.
I oppose the gesture bombing, but it actually seems to be being seen on all sides as a symbolic act, rather than a war one, and will not be repeated.
Night all
Good night one an all
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/971482516912836608?s=19
This had implications for nationality: as the UK brexited off (sorry) from the Empire, citizenship became more and more tightly defined. TrevorMcDonald arrived from Trinidad in the 60's and had "British" on his passport (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trinidad_and_tobago_colonial_passport.jpg) , and New Zealand had "British Passport" on its passports until 1977 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dominion_of_New_Zealand_passport.jpg)
So it wasn't that Trinidad was part of the UK, it was more like Trinidad and the UK were part of the Empire and the whole of it was British
The link given by @Benpointer is good: I reproduce it here: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/why-caribbean-commonwealth-citizens-are-being-denied-immigration-status/
We understand our own history poorly, I think.
And I rather suspect we'd be better off without Amazon's sweatshops.
But if this country ever lives within its means then we say bye-bye to thousands upon thousands of migrant workers in wealth consuming service sector jobs.
And I suggest it might be better if a few lardarses washed their own cars instead of paying people employed in an industry notorious for illegal employment and tax evasion.
The right answer in all three cases is for the government to stop interfering with voluntary interactions that don't harm anyone else.
As for your remark about lardarses: you may well be right, but the lardarses did not agree with you, and they assessed the trade as worth the coin: their wealth went up. That's the advantage of capitalism and free trade: the use of money crystallizes many possible virtual decisions into one actual decision and simultaneously measures its value, and because both parties did so voluntarily the wealth of both increased.
Is that a good thing?
a) making it easier for Africa/Americas/Asians to enter, or
b) making it harder for Europeans to enter?
And (after your adjustment), would there be
a) less people coming in per year, or
b) more people coming in per year?
The freedom with which the Israelis are doing this, assuming they are at work, is a huge headache for Russia. They have let the Israelis get on because they just do not want to tangle with them. Its the one country with the will and means to change the dynamic and Russia has not got the expeditionary warfare capability to stop them.
Assuming it is Israeli raids, you would guess they are doing it in response to Iranian and Hezbollah threats that they will retaliate for the recent Israeli strike on T4. The Israelis have a ridiculously comprehensive knowledge of where to go and what to hit. Standard Israeli practice, defence means getting your punch in first.
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/political-polling-and-digital-media-tickets-42422781682?aff=es2
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/hannity-michael-cohen-fbi-raid-526860
And confirmed what a shitty fournalists he is.
Cohen seems to be every bit as dodgy a businessman as Trump, and there is no privilege argument covering seized documents which demonstrate that...
I may well be wrong, but I can’t recall my children having passports when we went on holiday to Portugal in the early 70’s.
There have been major changes in the regulations over the years, and requirements to have documentation are applied retrospectively.
The government is rightly being hauled over the coals on this.
Anyway, he had to go to some place in Croydon for an intensive interview. Eventually after hours going through the records he brought with him they decided that he was entitled to a passport. But it wasn't as straightforward as "here's my birth certificate, here's my NI number", which he had.
A history of NI payments should be sufficient, or other factors. But it’s an administrative adjustment rather than some massive change.
Based on the press reports these are the kind of hard working individuals who have demonstrated commitment to this country and have made a contribution. They’ve earned their right to be be here.
But it’s not unreasonable to ask them to regularise the situation
https://youtu.be/EM1IM2QUYjk
https://twitter.com/kevin_maguire/status/986120050783522817?s=21
Summary: the referendum campaign was won with a conscious policy of pandering to xenophobia. As I have been known to say on the odd occasion.
At some point Leave advocates are going to have to start thinking about what this means for the future of this country.
They inferred he was being deported because he filed his visa paperwork a few weeks late, when in fact it was because the rules stated he needed 10 years of being legally resident here and he did not meet that criteria. And the guardian just happened to forget to mention that rather crucial factor.
Secondly, the actual quotes don't justify your summary at all. All the quotes say is they were provocative and used immigration as an issue. I know you think all campaigning against immigration is "pandering to xenophobia" but it isn't true.
On-topic: BBC report at ten last night weirdly had lots of backbenchers speaking, mostly critical of lack of vote before strikes, but none of the Labour backbenchers laying into Corbyn.