Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Sphincter_Control, Jul 15, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Why can I not vote all bottom 3?
Probably a few family members are getting worried
They're here illegaly, get rid of them. No amnesty, it would only encourage more of the scum. Employing these illegal criminals should be made a hanging offence as should being illegal.
50% - almost a majority so far, and IMHO will probably edge steadily upwards as more people vote.
Time for my 10p worth on how and under what circumstances immigrants should be allowed to stay. (Be careful, this could be interpreted as a rant):
1. Any potential immigrant must arrive in the UK through a legal point of entry and declare themselves to the Immigration Service on arrival. They should have in their possession the correct documentation (passport, visa etc). Failure to do this would result in their being turned around and sent back to the last country they had been in. After all, if an immigrant arrives at a legal port of entry, they should still possess their documents.
2. Anyone who arrives from a third country claiming asylum should be refused and sent back. France, for example, is a safe place, though is probably a bit tighter with benefit payments.....
3. Those who get this far would be required to prove their honesty and integrity. This means filling out all forms correctly, without the use of false names, dates of birth, countries of origin etc. Any falsification or evasion should result in immediate deportation. This should also be applied to residency and citizenship applications. Those making false declarations should be penalised no matter how far in the past it occured.
4. Take finger prints and/or retina scans of all asylum seekers. This can be used to verify their identities when they turn up to collect benefits, apply for housing etc.
5. Each and every immigrant must turn up in person to be told the decisions of the immigration authorities. That way, if they have been rejected, they authorities can detain them immediately prior to deportation and prevent them disappearing into the grey economy.
6. Fines for employers who knowingly give work to those who are not permitted employment should be raised, though each case should be heard by a judge on its individual merits.
7. Any asylum seeker who serves a sentence in a UK prison should be met by the immigration service on release and detianed until repatriation can be arranged. This should be enforced regardless of conditions in their country of origin.
8. Those who facilitate or assist illegal migration into the UK or who aid others in circumventing immigratinon controls should be liable to severe prison sentences.
9. All of the above should be retrospective.
The intention of what I've written above is to ensure that only honest and genuine asylum seekers/refugee's etc are accepted and that economic migrants and thosewho traffick them are caught and punished.
My suggestion to my bosses was that we replace immigration officers with ex-soldiers who can make good use of all that fibua training to break down doors in the middle of the night before taking them to an airbase where they are flown back home in a herc and thrown out the back with a parachute on.
can you see people flooding to the uk if this is how we remove them if they don't remove themselves?
Apparently this isn't the image the home office wants to project some thing to do with human rights or wotnot
Invicta - Do you work for the IND? Remarkable! but that is the policy!
Why the huge cost and time taken to get rid of all the illegals . Most have come to Britain thru France , plenty of spare seats on the ferries most of the year , one way ticket only and no aid whatsoever.
France is a safe country so how can any of the parasites claim they couldn't stop there and claim asylum?
Yes it is the policy, but since when have we paid any attention to something like that
BIA darling not IND....we have a new name and are to encourage its use whenever we have the opportunity
I like your suggestions but having seen a lot of IO's I would go for keeping them under 20 stone first!
"I could not claim asylum in any other country because I was under the control of an agent, I did not choose to come to the UK but only asked to be taken to a safe country, it was the agent that chose to bring me to the UK"
And for those arriving at Heathrow etc
"The immigration officer did not ask me anything or talk to me, the agent did all the talking then I was waved through"
to which any decent Immigration judge will point out that even they have to be individually questioned by IO's at the airport and they are Judges.
Kick the buggers out.
Ah some would say...........you're an exile and live in a foreign country youself.
Correct but the difference is that I am legal and I pay my way.
[And still contribute to the feckless idle in UK by paying UK tax]
At the end of the day what is the difference between fugees and 3rd generation council tiprats who will never work and claim benefits till they retire?
They are both a drain on resources - you can't deal with one lot without dealing with the other
Invicta....you have just quoted BIA (IND no longer exists) policy.
The only problems with this is the way it is implemented. Believe me, for every sensible idea/policy there is an (arguably ridiculous) counter response from the lunatic fringes (human rights lawyers, guardianistas etc.) that puts paid to any sanity.
I have to work with them on a daily basis and while there are some good lads/lasses in the enforcement teams the quality of many others makes me despair.
Such as the IO who thought some scribbled notes on a bit of paper with nothing to identify who wrote it or its source organisation was actually the way intel reports should be produced for court (this guy was apparently an intel officer).
Or coming through calais and the IO looks at my partners passport and me, nods, then looks at my passport and gets confused. Not that I would have minded as she is much prettier than me.....but she's ginger with bright green eyes a mass of curly hair and glasses, I'm brunette (well a bit blond at the moment) with straight hair blue eyes and no glasses!!
This possibly helps explain why we have hundreds of thousands of people in the country who should't be
Separate names with a comma.