Lax Olympic border checks 'may let in illegal migrants' as well as thousands of athletes
Thousands of foreign athletes will be allowed into Britain without visas for the Olympics, a Daily Mail investigation has revealed. The decision, rubberstamped by Immigration Minister Damian Green, could open the door to illegal migrants, MPs warned.
It is expected to spark renewed controversy over lax border controls and national security.
Documents reveal that border officials plan to conduct 60-second biometric checks on competitors when they arrive at airports next summer. Those turning up at small airfields or marinas without border staff on duty will escape the checks altogether. They will be ‘on trust’ to report to a UK Border Agency (UKBA) office within 48 hours to be photographed and give their fingerprint scans.
This is despite the fact that British sporting events have been blighted in recent years by the disappearance of overseas participants. In 2002, members of the Bangladeshi relay team disappeared during the Commonwealth Games in Manchester before they had run a race, and 21 athletes from Sierra Leone went missing after the Games.
The same year, 58 golfers from Nigeria and Ghana were granted visas to compete in qualifying events at the Open, but 53 vanished as soon as they landed in the UK. Two years ago four Ethiopian athletes fled from their hotel in London.
The little-known deal struck between the Government, the International Olympic Committee and the London Olympic Games organising committee, means the normal visa rules have been abandoned for all 25,000 non-EU competitors, their coaches, and team officials.
It is thought that half the 25,000 due to arrive without visas already have their biometrics lodged with the UKBA after a previous UK visit or visa application. This means their criminal records can be checked against immigration and security databases before they travel.
However, the remaining 12,500 from more than 175 nations – including terrorist hotspots such as Pakistan, Somalia, Iran and Afghanistan – will arrive carrying only photo-identity accreditation cards issued by the Olympic authorities and their national passports.
Labour MP Mark Hendrick, a critic of Olympic security, described the decision to waive the UK visa as ‘madness’. He is expected to demand an emergency Parliamentary debate on the issue. He said: ‘At a time when heightened security regarding terrorism is needed, the Government is lowering the barriers.’
Alp Mehmet, an advisory council member of MigrationWatch UK and former immigration officer, expressed concern about the lack of checks on athletes, coaches and officials returning home after the Olympics.
He said: ‘History tells us that there will be those who abscond and never leave. But how will we know who they are, or the numbers, if the athletes are not checked out?’
A Home Office spokesman said that the visa-free rules do not allow anyone to settle in the UK and added: ‘They are specifically for the purpose of taking part in the Games.’
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Why USCIS Should Not ‘Streamline’ the Immigrant Investor Program (Testimony)
2. There's a Steady Flow of New Spouses Among Those Migrating to the U.S. (Blog)
3. GAO Report: Illegal Aliens Start Forest Fires (Blog)
4. We Have the Facts, But They Have Both the Poetry and the Magazine Covers (Blog)
5. Newt Morphing into Bush and Teddy Kennedy on Amnesty (Blog)
6. The Gingrich Amnesty (Blog)
7. Chain Migration, the TPS Way (Blog)
8. Stapling Green Cards to Diplomas, and Other Foolish Ideas You Might Have Missed in the GOP Debate (Blog)
9. GAO Finds Illegals Are Often Fire Starters (Blog)
10. Murders Twice Linked to Immigration Marriage Fraud in D.C. Area (Blog)
11. U.S. = Stupid Cupid, U.K. = Scrooge Regarding Immigration and Marriage (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