Britain's Borders 'made less secure by Labour' say frontline staff
Britain's border guards have delivered a damning verdict on Labour's supposedly 'tough' immigration system. In an official survey, nearly three quarters of staff working on the front line said the changes made the border less secure.
But migrants asked their views on the system - attacked for allowing arrivals to spiral out of control - were overwhelmingly in favour. More than 80 per cent of visa applicants said the system was fair, easy to understand and 'user-friendly'. Businesses and universities bringing migrants in to work or study in Britain were similarly in favour.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch UK think tank said: 'We have long had concerns about the effectiveness of the points based system in controlling the scale of immigration to Britain.' 'The fact that immigrants themselves are very happy with it, and immigration officers are not serves to underline the view that the system needs fundamental reassessment.'
The Australian-style points system, introduced by Gordon Brown, was intended to cut arrivals from outside the EU, with numbers of economic migrants expected to fall by as much as 12 per cent. But it was branded 'shambolic' after analysis showed that economic migration actually increased by 20 per cent, while the number of foreign students went up by more than 30 per cent.
Less than a year after it was brought in, ministers were forced to suspend applications from several countries, including Bangladesh and Nepal, because of fears student routes were being abused by economic migrants.
In just twelve months the number of visas issued in Bangladesh increased by 645 per cent. At the time, some border staff watching arrivals at UK ports and airports reported migrants arriving who could barely speak English, despite having met supposedly strict admission criteria.
The Home Office survey of nearly 2000 immigration staff was carried between April and May last year.
Around half of all UK Border Agency staff - including backroom workers tasked with processing applications - said the country's borders appeared less secure since the system was brought in. But that view was held by 71 per cent of Border Force staff who work on the front line.
The survey also suggested the system was rushed in, with just 14 per cent of Border Force staff saying they were properly prepared for its introduction.
The highest approval rates - approaching 90 per cent - were seen in Tier One of the points system, which issued visas to 'highly skilled' workers allowed to come to Britain even if they didn't have a secure job offer.
Figures emerged recently showing just one in four of those coming in through Tier One was able to secure a 'highly skilled' occupation. Nearly one in three were either unemployed or working as supermarket cashiers, security guards or call centre staff.
Of 6,796 migrants, 82 per cent of those in Tier One said they were satisfied with the system, 81 per cent of skilled migrants coming in through Tier 2, and 79 per cent of young and temporary workers admitted under Tier 5.
Businesses and universities bringing in migrants to work and study gave the scheme an 86 per cent approval rate.
Ministers have pledged to cut net migration - the difference between the numbers arriving and those leaving - from more than 200,000 last year to less than 100,000 by 2015.
In an unprecedented crackdown the number of economic migrants arriving from outside the EU will be permanently capped from later this year, and both student visa numbers and totals coming here to marry will be slashed.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. REAL ID Implementation: Less Expensive, Doable, and Helpful in Reducing Fraud (Backgrounder)
2. The Big Lie Never Dies: The Washington Post on Mass Deportation (Blog)
3. A Small Hyphen's Large Assimilation Results (Blog)
4. Hyphenation vs. Dual Citizenship (Blog)
5. Just How Does an Anchor Baby Anchor the Illegal Alien Parent? (Blog)
6. What's in a Name? Assimilation's Secret Weapon (Blog)
7. Morton Kondracke and the Immigration-Industrial Complex (Blog)
8. Plan B for the Pro-Migration Advocates (Blog)
9. Not Your Father's Latino Officials (Blog)
10. Would Advanced Immigrant Visas for 55,000 Haitians Help Haiti? (Blog)
11. Phoenix ICE Agents Raid Business! (Blog)
12. Decision Makers: Gallegly in House of Representatives, Sperling in White House (Blog)
13. Arlington-Based Outfit Urges India to Fight Against U.S. Interests in WTO (Blog)
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment