As long term readers know, I often assist with refugee and immigration cases, including representing at immigration courts, and we have occasionally over the years housed refugee families in our home for a while.
I have nowadays to add for the avoidance of trolling, no I do not get paid for any of this, by anyone.
Yesterday I was introduced to a case unlike any other I have seen.
A student arrived in the UK, with a new, valid and genuine student multiple visa in his passport. His course fees are paid and he had money to support himself.
On first arrival at the UK airport immigration desk he was told his visa was cancelled. There was no interview and no questions were asked, he was just told the computer said it had been cancelled.
He was taken aside to a holding cell, and there told they would not say why his student visa was cancelled, as it was confidential.
He was not given any paperwork. The visa was not physically cancelled in his passport – it still has not been. That is itself very strange, if it had been cancelled it should have been stamped as such at the airport.
If the student visa had been refused rather than granted, he would by law have been required to be issued with a “decision letter” giving the grounds for refusal. That letter would also by law explain his rights of appeal.
Now a visa does not give an automatic right of entry to the UK. The immigration service at the border have the right to interview the entrant and refuse entry if they are not satisfied. This might most frequently be because the person has no evidence of funds to support themselves.
It is however very unusual indeed for a person with a valid visa to be turned back.
If it happens, it should be following interview and based on evidence and would still require a letter to be issued.
None of that happened. The border staff did not claim they were making the decision, it had been made mysteriously elsewhere, explicitly with no explanation, and existed within their computer.
The student was told they would simply be deported immediately back. They therefore entered a claim of political asylum – something they had no intention whatsoever of doing when they boarded the plane with their student visa. Their grounds included that they had borrowed the money for their course fees, travel and maintenance, from people who would now kill them if they returned with no means to repay.
I find this case utterly baffling. It seems to have been handled in a manner designed to circumvent all the rights of the student and all the legal requirement for a paper trail.
If the visa had been cancelled before travel, why was the student not informed of the cancellation in their home town and a new decision letter issued, and why was the airline not informed at pre-clearance?
We now have the situation that the student is stuck here in asylum seeker limbo, not allowed to attend the course they have paid for and not allowed to work. How does this help anybody?
I have written before of the privatisation and deprofessionalisation of UK Immigration Services. What we seem to have here is the empowerment of entirely arbitrary racism. There seems a complete contempt by the “UK Border Force” for the laws they are supposed to be enforcing.
————————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
I’m going to guess. Russian?
No, not any connection to Russia as far as I can see.
You did not mention the student’s ethnicity or nationality, and yet you accuse the British government of racism. Why is that?
Because it simply isn’t required; the definition of racism is the belief that a race is superior or inferior to another and acting upon such a belief.
The demonstrated illegal behaviour of UK Border Force here is a belief that the British are superior to other races – AKA “English exceptionalism” – and that therefore they can dispense with legal obligations in their treatment of people from other races.
The fact that English exceptionalism doesn’t prevent racist megalomaniacs from treating other English people, particularly of “lower classes”, or the actual people in the UK with the closest claim to being ethnically “British” (i.e. the Welsh), is besides the point. The racists are able to maintain this delusional juxtaposition in their heads through what essentially amounts to sociopathic narcissism.
I still do not get it. Generally speaking, racism is a variety of xenophobia, but xenophobia does not equal racism. So I can’t agree that, for example, ethnocide in Rwanda or discrimination of Russians in the Baltic states is racism. While I understand Craig’s argument about the lack of due process, I do not get the racism part in the headline.
Nota Tory Fanboy, you are confusing racism with xenophobia and using other concepts too in a highly confused and even puerile way. You give the appearance of someone who’s most interested in words. I’m sure you’re not that, but you’re giving that appearance and (some friendly advice) you may wish to act so as not to.
Derek FP actually the meaning of words and definition of terms matters, not just semantically but also in a legal context.
Xenophobia literally means “fear of the foreign(er) / strange(er)”. It comes from two Ancient Greek words “xenos” and “phobos”.
I can assure you I am not confusing racism with xenophobia. Fear of something does not automatically translate into believing that something is either inferior or superior to you. Fear of something usually triggers a form of fight or flight survival response.
Treating someone as either superior or inferior to you simply based upon the land mass on which they were born (a land mass purely by accident different from the one on which you were born, potentially with a different level of sunshine exposure) is, by definition, racism.
“Treating someone as either superior or inferior to you simply based upon the land mass on which they were born (a land mass purely by accident different from the one on which you were born, potentially with a different level of sunshine exposure) is, by definition, racism.”
No it isn’t. Racism is treating other races as inferior. The same treatment given to members of your own race, e.g. Ukranian Slavs discriminating against Russian Slavs may be equally reprehensible, but is not racism.
Is this madness confined to the UK or do other countries also rely on what the computer says?
Another good reason for Scotland to dissolve the union, and put something in place with a more human touch.
@Republicofscotland
No, that’s an argument for putting right the whole of the UK and, by extension, the world.
“No, that’s an argument for putting right the whole of the UK ”
A pipe dream its never going to happen.
So basically you assume the airport was in the hated England, and if by some freak of fate it was actually in Scotland then it was only because English rule made the Scottish immigration officers act that way?
And you’re different from some idiot who keeps going on about “the P****” all the time, right?
“was in the hated England”
Your words not mine.
It would be helpful for us to understand this better if you’d kindly tell us what you know about the student’s country of origin. Thanks!
Nothing that raises any particular interest with regard to current world events. But that is not in fact relevant to the failure to follow any lawful procedure.
Hear, hear Mr. Murray!
“Ah it’s arbitrarily ok that the instruments of State are engaging in Kafka-esque illegal behaviour because through accident of birth it turns out their victim was born on a different land mass…”
Give me a break.
Craig, you seem to have switched pronouns mid article, or maybe I am misunderstanding something.
From he to they? Why not?
It’s confusing. Is there one person or several? “They” implies more than one (in English).
Maybe it’s my dialect, but I use they in the singular quite a lot, particularly once you have already established the identity.
You have a Canadian dialect?
Your English dialect?
If you switch “they” to “he”, it doesn’t read as well: “The student was told he would simply be deported immediately back.” That could be confusing. I don’t know exactly why, though. It just seems immediately clear to me that the pronoun “they” refers to “the student” (and is therefore being used in the singular sense), but it wouldn’t be quite as clear that “he” does. Perhaps it’s because the noun phrase “the student” contains no indication of gender, and the reintroduction of gender via a pronoun is jarring, enough to suggest that it might refer to someone else? Let’s hope a grammar expert comes along to explain! (Perhaps the chief grammar expert of the British Army will just happen to be reading this article?) 🙂
In general, the use of “they” as a singular pronoun is only confusing when it is introduced without enough context to make it clear that the singular use is intended. It can indeed be very annoying when people do this. It happens quite a lot these days, but this is not an instance of it.
Tom
I learned the language a long time ago and even then my textbook was already outdated – there was that using the 2nd personal pronouns is an expression of politeness, and in modern English the 2nd person (grammatically) is always plural “they / them”, since the singular “thou” is obsolete.
—
a system is adopted in grammar:
the 1st person is the one who speaks (this person would describe him/herself as “I / me” for singular or “we / our” for plural);
the 2nd person is the one who is addressed directly (so, the speaker says “you / your / yours”, for both singular and plural, but grammatically it’s plural only);
and the 3rd person is the one they are talking about (“he / she / they”)
—
By the way, in some languages, including Russian, this phenomenon also exist: addressing a person ты (‘you’ singular) is a simple form, like, ‘ты хочешь’ – you wish’.
Вы (‘you’ plural), as in ‘вы хотите – you wish’ is used to adress several people or, when speaking to a single person, it’s to expresss politeness and respect.
And a particularly respectful form is the 3rd grammatical form, “the _3rd pronoun or name_ wishes”, now obsolete or used for coloring one’s speech. Like “Does the lovely lady mind having a cup of coffee with me?” said directly to the lady.
Tatyana, in the context of this discussion, the “singular they” is being used because the English language lacks a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. Nothing to do with the level of respect or familiarity that one wants to express.
As you’re interested in languages and linguistics, I’d like to mention the Basque lanuage. With one tiny exception, it has no gender at all in its grammar. It’s the perfect non-sexist language! Another interesting feature of Basque is that it has no swear words! But that doesn’t stop them swearing in Spanish, which they do as frequently as anybody else. The worst obscenity in Spanish is considered to be “I shit on God” (“Me cago en Dios”), but they often say instead “I shit in ten”, which sounds very similar in Spanish (“Me cago en diez”) (“cagarse en” is equivalent to “fuck”, but nobody says “fuck God” in English; “cagarse” is the infinitve form, and conjugates just like any reflexive verb in Spanish). “puta” (= whore) and its male equivalent “puto” is also very strong. Might be useful, I suppose, for people who hate Putin. Well, you did say you’d like to learn more obscenities!
Up to about 350 years ago (early modern English), English did have a familiar, informal second-person singular pronoun: thou (nominative), thee (accusative), thy or thine (genitive), roughly equivalent to the Russian ты. You will find it in Shakespeare and the Authorised Version of the Bible (Americans call it the “King James Version”), both of which have had a huge influence on the language that continues to this day. Recommended reading for nice Russian ladies who want to improve their understanding of English! 🙂
I’m particularly aware of this form, as I’m a Quaker, and early Quakers insisted on using the familiar form to everybody. This annoyed a lot of people, especially judges, and was one of the many reasons they kept getting thrown in prison (tends to happen if you annoy powerful people, as Craig has found out). This use has now died out among Quakers, since the modern “you” is the same for everybody.
For those interested in more details:
Thou
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou
Basque grammar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language#Grammar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_grammar#Pronouns_and_adverbs
Spanish obscenities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_profanity I think this article is sometimes misleading, for example “de puta madre” can mean something like “great”, “fantastic”, “excellent”, “ideal”, “very good”, since the ideal woman should combine the sexual allure of a prostitute with the love and care of a mother
Thank you, Neil 🙂 Wow! The treasure you’ve shared! Thanks a lot!
—
No one knows in advance how their life can turn upside down. Expecting to become a successful jeweler, perhaps a person will find that they can no longer do such work at an older age, and perhaps such a person will come up with an idea to earn an income by writing books. So the eeeeval woman Tatyana continues to take notes 🙂
Entry #6: halfwit – придурок. Stands after Entry #5: nutter – еб*нутый.
In retirement, I may publish the book “Basic English Insults” 🙂 I can advertise under the slogan “Safe to use, even British diplomats do it!”
Isn’t that one good plan? Definitely yes!
And what’s even better is that I have Lever #4 to get more “stuff” if needed. Although there is no need for levers yet, Mr. Murray seems to be doing just fine.
—
Wonderful place this website is. Have I said that already? So much more than simply know the news!
Neil you say you are a Quaker. Could you suggest a source to me that might give me some info on what Quakers believe and their history. I know the web is full of info but I always find a personal recommendation more worthwhile than trawling thru endless reams of text that might or might not be relevant.
We ate Quaker porridge in my house when I was young so I have been aware of the word for along time. My siblings and I all found the image on the box of a man in 17th (?) century garb intriguing and we all viewed this fellow positively. I only became aware there was a religious element much later in life.
Neil, I remember the story of William Penn meeting King Charles II and addressing him as “Friend Charles”. The king took it in good part and they had a nice chat.
But, Tatyana, you must be aware that what English diplomats feel free to say about “lesser breeds without the Law” would cause great offence were you to use such language about them.
Tom, too long a phrase put in too neutral words. How do you like ‘f*cking idiots’? Short and expressive, isn’t it? Lavrov is one of the kind 🙂
Or, ‘mustachioed cockroach’ – Zelensky about Erdogan. I find it errr… artistic.
Or, ‘f*cking lunatic’? That’s how one diplomat called Mikhail Saakashvili. So then, the diplomats may use this language when talking to each other, I think. Diplomacy is a mysterious science 🙂
will moon – I’d suggest https://www.quaker.org.uk
It’s the “official” website for quakerism in Britain, and is probably the best starting point. It focuses mostly on modern British Quakers. Quakerism in the United States is different, being found in several different forms, many of which are similar to the British variety; others include some which are very similar to evangelical Christianity.
The strange Quaker dress that you see on the Quaker Oats package arose from Friends’ testimony to simplicity, but died out when it eventually became simply ridiculous.
P.S. If you click on the link in my username, then click on the user talk:NSH001 link at the top, then click on the “User” tab at the top, you will eventually find out that I am a Quaker.
Neil thanks very much. I will spend some time this weekend when I am nice and calm and begin my investigation into Quakerism. I probably should have done this earlier in life but had religion forced down my throat when I was a child – which gave me at least a thirty year period of mocking any organised religion whatsoever – I am embarrassed now but there you go
Ps I already believed you were a Quaker. I believe anyone till they prove themselves a liar. It is one of my “unchangeables”.
will moon – There is a little red booklet that we give any new visitors to our local Quaker meeting house. It’s a good introduction to the basics.
https://qfp.quaker.org.uk/chapter/1/
If you want something short that sums up Quakerism, I don’t think you can better this:
“Dearly beloved Friends, these things we do not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by, but that all, with the measure of light which is pure and holy, may be guided; and so in the light walking and abiding, these may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not from the letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.
Postscript to an epistle to ‘the brethren in the north’ issued by a meeting of elders at Balby, 1656”
As for childhood religion, I grew up, in an English family, in Scotland in the 1950s and 1960s; my father was a firm atheist (partly because he was a scientist, but mostly from his experiences in The War – North Africa, Burma, Japanese PoW); my mother wasn’t an atheist, but neither was she a fan of the church – Scottish or English variety. Nevertheless they sent us kids to Sunday School – which was terrible at teaching religion. But in primary school back then in Scotland there was a lot of religion, and taught much better than in Sunday school. We rejected religion when we got to about age 10 or 11, but I think we retained the moral values. My father, although an atheist, did recognise that the Baptist religion of his mother and of his much younger brother (too young to fight in The War) helped them become happier and more effective people.
Neil that is a very beautiful passage. The last bit “the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life” sums up what I have learned in the course of my life.
I have never joined any organisation voluntarily and always left the ones I have been forced to join eventually. When one has “walked alone” for as long as I have, there are doubts regarding one’s suitablilty for any form of organised collective activity.
That being said, I did notice that when I was browsing the first link you offered that I found myself staring at the page which listed local Quaker meetings. Your second link, the one offered to newcomers, is what I was looking for. I am a compulsive reader and synthesise my opinions from text and what I observe in daily life. Thanks for your time and thought.
That final phrase would have been instantly recognisable to everybody in 1656 as a quotation from the Authorised Version of the Bible (2 Corinthians 3:6 – had to look up the exact reference), thus not a particularly “Quaker” text. Of course I was brought up on the AV; every primary school pupil was given a copy of the Authorised Version (the only translation that was available back then) – leather bound and printed on very thin paper. This education ensured that most people would also have been familiar with the more popular quotations from the AV.
Well I thought I’d mention it in case you’d made a mistake and one of the two was not the student’s choice, but so long as you’re aware, fine.
What is the obsession with pronouns on this thread?
“We now have the situation that the student is stuck here in asylum seeker limbo, not allowed to attend the course they have paid for and not allowed to work. How does this help anybody?”
C’est pour decourager les autres.
C’est pour decourager les autres.
Not sure about the UK but international students in Canada and Australia are a very lucrative source of funds for universities and colleges. Of course Gov’ts are, often, not rational.
Yes, international students are indeed a very lucrative source of funds for universities and colleges in Canada, and the students are often extremely exploited by rogue “colleges” and often fall foul of immigration. Some of the stories are horrific.
It’s not a question of the universities in UK – they depend for their survival on the high tuition fees paid by foreign students. If they only had UK students, they’d all be bankrupt.
If the student came from Oz or Canada, I very much doubt this would have happened.
Maybe the battle against rationality has reached the stage where they are trying to defund proper universities.
On a marginally related note, decades ago in Germany, a strategy paper was leaked in which federal politicians and those of the various states agreed to starve the universities in order to force them to properly implement the reforms. Those reforms were about devaluing German academic degrees and ensuring that graduates reach the job market younger. The universities were only implementing these reforms on paper, with clauses that gave everyone leeway to secretly continue previous practices. But once they were nearly broke, they were offered financial rewards for meeting certain targets. Once the reforms had taken full effect, employers complained that even those with a Master degree no longer were as qualified as they used to be, and basically refused to employ anyone with just a Bachelor degree. So the maximum percentages for how many Bachelor graduates were allowed to continue were lifted, but university funding was of course not repaired. I think the universities are still being forced into meeting the strict targets of whatever random reforms the politicians have dreamed up last, or competing with other universities who meets them best, just to get the financial incentives that restore total funding to sustainable levels.
This seems at first sight to be yet another case of overreliance on the computer, similar to what happened to the wrongly convicted subpostmasters, condemned on the basis of computer evidence that turned out to be based on faulty software.
Yes. And whoever was ultimately responsible for the faulty software should have borne all the responsibility for all its consequences. Not the programmers, either, but the executives who dictated how the programs were to work. “Faulty software” is not an act of God or an unpredictable force of nature. It is always traceable to some person or persons who must be held fully responsible.
‘And whoever was ultimately responsible for the faulty software should have borne all the responsibility for all its consequences.’
There I must disagree with you Tom. I have commented about this in a previous thread (about the judiciary) but the fault (in the Post Office cases) lies primarily with pursuit of prosecutions without sufficient credible evidence – figures presented on a screen produced by a software system are not such evidence. Not only was the system known to be faulty but such could be readily proved by checking the inputs vs. outputs of the system – customer receipts (the system should have provided duplicates for the vendor) checked against product sales and the final tally. Without such checks there was insufficient evidence. The fault lies with the Post Office hierarchy and those responsible for pursuit of prosecutions, in particular the courts including the judges and the defence councils. At least the prosecution were merely pursuing a case that should have been tested by the courts.
I see this issue as an example of group think – an item I think you have raised before – nobody with the power is prepared to challenge the general belief
No such thing as faulty software, it works exactly as it is programmed to do. Whether this is what was expected is another issue entirely. An extensive testing regime would identify most unexpected behaviours before the software was released. A shoddy/cheap software product is a complete unknown in terms of behaviour and performance.
Never underestimate the pressures that management, and customers, exert to get a product out the door and earning revenue, whether it works or not. And if you add in power hungry, racist bureaucrats to the mix then failure is a given.
“Tuttle? His name is Buttle. There must be some mistake.”
“We don’t make mistakes.”
It certainly is consistent with a recent trend. “Computer says… end of”.
Of course the relevant principle should be that whoever owns a computer, decides how it should be programmed, and instructs employees to obey the computer’s orders… is legally responsible for all the consequences.
But “computer says” certainly is a most convenient device for the spiteful, risk-averse bureaucrat.
It should be easy enough to identify who cancelled the Visa through the computer system ,which will be time stamped and log on details retained.
Rather reminiscent of the case of Novak Djokovic, who arrived in Australia last year with a freshly-issued visa – only to be promptly deported anyway.
Governments like to seem law-abiding, but when it comes to the crunch they do not hesitate to resort to, “… because I say so”.
Yes, it is dreadful, much worse than other countries, I quite agree. I know someone who was appointed to a post-doc in Oxford, and was refused a visa twice, and only got it by luck the third time after having to go back to her home country to find additional documents. Subsequently she had another post-doc in an Ivy League university in the States, and had no difficulty getting a visa. Not quite the same as the case in the post, but still evidence of deliberate brutality.
Nobody should be treated like this. But it is hardly the norm if one appreciates the record number of immigrants that are legally arriving in the UK.
Seven million new arrivals over the last 20 years. A record 600,000 last year alone.
https://news.sky.com/story/net-migration-rises-to-new-record-figure-of-606-000-in-the-year-to-december-2022-12888478
There is no parallel in all British history for this scale of immigration into the country.
Politicians on both sides have been successfully covering it up by diverting public attention to the miniscule number of “illegal” asylum seekers trying to cross the Channel in boats. A tiny fraction with whom the politicians are perenially “getting tough”.
It’s more in continental Europe. Britain gets away quite lightly.
Seven million in 20 years is not getting off lightly. There is no precedent for an influx of that scale.
It has been a great boon. Without the immigration, there would have been zero economic growth in the last 20 years. If you removed the first and second generation immigrants from the workforce, the entire country would collapse.
That may be true, but it certainly didn’t help that Blair’s government had the pea-brained idea of attempting to push 50% of school leavers into university, often into Mickey Mouse subjects with little employability value, whilst neglecting the skilled trades and essential vocations.
The UK’s current *official* population (which is perhaps a gross underestimate) puts us at 240% of sustainable ecological footprint. See https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
We have to import over half of our food – and various lunatics, supported by government, are doing their best to destroy what farming we have left.
Those considerations very greatly outweigh any superficial thoughts about “economic growth”.
Incidentally, just how can you know that “[w]ithout the immigration, there would have been zero economic growth in the last 20 years”?
If true, why do you think that is? Have indigenous British people suddenly ceased to be able to think or to work? And if so, why?
“Have indigenous British people suddenly ceased to be able to think or to work? ”
No, they have been doing what all people do, which is to grow older. As a result they have been retiring and expecting other people to work and pay their pensions. Unfortunately, 20 years ago we weren’t having enough children for as many people to be now entering the labour force as leaving it. Without a time machine, the only way to solve this problem is to import our workforce ready-grown from overseas. Brexit has shown what effect even a small diminution of the rate of this importing has on the supply of labour available.
In addition to this, having a debt-based economy with a debt-based currency, means that standing still is not an option. The workforce has to grow, so that the economy can grow and the interest on the debts be paid. That is why we need immigrants, lots of them, even if it results in a population far greater than we can support by growing our own food. Isn’t financial capitalism wonderful!
Hard to realistically see any ‘economic boon’ in the last twenty years. The country has been going down the pan and peoples lifestyles, mostly working class, have been destroyed. I don’t blame the immigrants they are just a symptom of the corruption that pervades our shitty country. Maybe as you say the immigrants are just props keeping the sinking ship from going down which it ultimately will on its current course.
Immigrants aren’t necessarily taking jobs but they are certainly being used to prevent the home market from growing, eg. Nurses and Doctors. Lack of investment in the UK due to the use of foriegn workers is hardly an ‘economic boon’ unless you are a corrupt, capitalist !
“No, they have been doing what all people do, which is to grow older. As a result they have been retiring and expecting other people to work and pay their pensions. ”
Yes, because that was the agreement the british people understood was made with them when they agreed to work their arses off rebuilding the country after WW2.
The fact that the pension scheme is a scam was quite obvious from day one, but the people were sold on the fallacy of infinite growth. The reality was that there was a baby boom after the war and since then at least half a dozen census reports have highlighted the approaching problem. No government did anything to address this. So here we are.
The popular approach is to blame pensioners, because that’s easy, and divide and conquer is the modus operandi of UK governments. Use your brain, because the pensioners problems today will be yours tomorrow.
“Yes, because that was the agreement the british people understood was made with them when they agreed to work their arses off rebuilding the country after WW2”.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply it was an unreasonable expectation. However, as you point out, NI is just another tax on labour.
I don’t know about economic growth, living in Hull. The refugees and migrants who have moved here since the 90s have done a lot to raise the moral tone of the city. What the city has done for them is an open question.
“It has been a great boon”
With respect, to whom? A surplus of workers drives down wages which is a “boon” for employers (the few that have survived the “pandemic”, that is) not so much for the workers.
I suppose it’s also a “boon” for the government as it increases tax revenue, but the kind of immigration we have been experiencing for the last 20 years has degraded the quality of life for millions of working class Brits and is stretching public services such as council housing and the NHS to breaking point.
“Without the immigration, there would have been zero economic growth in the last 20 years.”
Economic growth (or borrowing as it should properly be called) is good for bankers and shareholders – but it is a disaster for taxpayers.
” If you removed the first and second generation immigrants from the workforce, the entire country would collapse”
The country IS collapsing, as you tell us every week LOL
To support immigration on the grounds of economic growth is understandably an argument of parties in election campaigns.
But it cannot form the legal basis of any normative document democractic communities are built on.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights grants every individual to leave his/her country of origin (and to return to it).
Any economic argument impeding this right is manipulation by the ruling class playing one workforce against the other.
Just to remind of a few articles from the UN Charter:
Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
These founding principles are normative.
Everyhting else concludes from that. Not the other way around.
Which eventually questions the fundamentals of the capitalist order.
Anything can be discussed. But eventually we shouldn´t mix up cause and effect.
(If this is to be a serious discourse about immigration.)
“Economic growth (or borrowing as it should properly be called) is good for bankers and shareholders – but it is a disaster for taxpayers.”
You don’t need borrowing to support economic growth, but you sure as shit need economic growth to support borrowing.
AG thank you for quoting those; they don’t get quoted anything like often enough!
And even if others try to justify an anti-immigrant / anti-asylum seeker / anti-foreigner sentiment on a capitalist basis, they will fail as at worst the *net* economic contribution from non-EU27 citizens is essentially zero, whilst from EU27 citizens is positive.
Which means they more than pay their way.
Which means they can’t be a burden on the NHS, schools etc. as they’ve already more than paid their share.
Which means one has to ask where all that money is actually going if our public services are failing?
Couldn’t have anything to do with vulture capitalist governments over the past 13 years…?
And their constant gaslighting the public about foreigners couldn’t be an imperialist divide-and-rule psyop tactic to get people to vote against the national interest (again), could it?
Thanks AG; was unaware of any of that, sad the info is not more widely disseminated.
Have you heard of climate change? Get used to it.
I am not saying you are right or wrong but I don’t see where you are getting the accusations of racism from here. I would have thought it more likely they have some experience of similar students paying for the same course only to disappear. What is the person coming to study and how much (roughly) in course fees did they have to pay? Is it in any way ‘mickey mouse’? I also find the story about being killed by loan sharks so now having to claim political asylum a little tall as well if I am honest…
And why do we have to grow the economy every year importing endless millions of people to achieve it. England already has a population density exceeding the Netherlands. That is the whole insanity of the capitalist system. Surprised you buy into it.
People really don’t understand the exponential function. Dr Bartlett explains…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4
The days of students enrolling on pretend courses at dodgy colleges are long gone Mac. There is nothing Mickey Mouse about it.
The point is there are processes for refusing visas and the “Border Force” have completely circumvented all those processes. They have issued the visa then arbitrarily stated it is cancelled, following none of the rules around that. It is like the police banging you up just because they think you are a wrong’un, with no charge given.
Frankly your own view that immigrants are dodgy is your own problem.
Hmm I don’t think I said that immigrants are dodgy Craig especially considering I am one. Just trying to rationalise the behaviour of Customs beyond they are ‘lunatic racists’ but hey-ho I will happily leave you to it.
Any thoughts about the exponential function, then?
Craig Murray | Don’t Dream The American Dream:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zko4nlFLMX0
I assume he still believes what he said …
Thanks Stevie,
On a side note, it’s actually heartening to see how many posters here are aware of the “money as debt” scam that enslaves us all.
The internet has been useful for this, at least.
“And why do we have to grow the economy every year importing endless millions of people to achieve it. ”
Because our economy is based on debt. The interest on the debt can only be paid if the economy grows.
Then our economy had better stop being based on debt, hadn’t it? And sharpish.
Incredibly easy to type that. Somewhat more difficult to make it happen.
Even more “incredibly difficult” (read: impossible) to get anything to keep growing exponentially for ever.
If something cannot go on, it will stop.
“Then our economy had better stop being based on debt, hadn’t it? And sharpish.”
What and deny all those rich financial rentiers their fat incomes? No chance. They are the ones that run the country.
I am reminded of something that happened to me nearly 16 years ago.
My wife who is from the Philippines but was at the time a British citizen wanted to visit a Philippine friend who was living in Sweden.
We wanted to bring my step daughter who was 22 at the time and had been in the UK for over five years and was a student at university.
But she still had a Philippine passport with Indefinite Leave to Remain stamp. I checked with the Swedish Embassy they said no visa was required and pointed me to there website where travel to Sweden from UK was explained.
When we got to Cardiff Airport they were not certain if travel was allowed but after checking I thought with Sweden travel was allowed.
But when we got to Amsterdam to change airplanes we had to go through customs and they would not allow travel.
It seems they had told Cardiff not to allow my step daughter to travel . The problem was to do with the Schengen agreement and the fact that Britain was not fully signed up to it. Although at the time they would not give a reason for refusal. KLM tried to persuade them that as we were only going for a week we were travelling as a family and had return tickets travel should be allowed. But it was no use, my step daughter had to travel back to Wales on her own as we went on to Sweden. It also took a lot if haggling to get the cost of the flight refunded.
Under EU free movement rules she should have been allowed to travel with you as a family member (and dependent) of an EU citizen. Even without a visa. But in my experience (with a non EU family member) immigration officers do not understand the rules. I always take the Schengan rules for immigration officers which states that if a person is a family member of an EU citizen, is accompanying the EU citizen and can prove it then the immigration officer must admit that person…my wife has been refused at an EU border when with me (I have Irish passport) and after showing them the rules and an hour or so of debate including calls to the relevant office of foreign affairs she was admitted.
“would I be correct in assuming that Mr Kodogo is a coloured gentleman?”
(https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/threads/constable-savage.2004/)
We are all coloured (with the possible exception of albinos).
Tom Welsh,
We are all coloured – but some more so than others.
All colours are equal but some colours are more equal than others.
in my student years there was following “game” every 6 months:
Our fellow students from non-EU countries had to go to the immigration office and prove they had 3000 or 6000 Euros (I forgot) on their bank account.
What students call 3000 Euros their own???
So every 6 months the entire university collected those 3000 Euros. They were paid onto the account. The immigration office signed the papers. The residency permit was extended for another 6 months. And the non-EU students paid back the 3000 Euros to the university.
Of course all this despite them working regularly since they had no access to state support like us EU-citizens.
p.s. when my parents entered Europe, the immigration official behind the desk pointing at me, the baby, commented: “You should have better brought a dog.”
If your parents had brought a dog in when you were the age of a baby, it would have had to spend 6 months in quarantine first.
Judging by the comments, there is considerable exclusionary nationalistic thinking among the recipients of this blog also.
Nationality and other accidental characteristics of the person in trouble do not matter. Not even the rules that the process of entry must obey. The only thing that matters is that the state does not play by the rules it has set for itself. And this is a scandal that Craig rightly decries.
correct
Sad truth that this insight won´t reach many people. But there are reasons for this phenomenon, which to deal with lies at the core of the entire machine causing the madness, be it the war or immigration.
This fault line will be instrumental against the left in coming elections.
(sry something went wrong while editing the post, but you´ll get the point)
“Nationality and other accidental characteristics of the person in trouble do not matter.”
Well, yes they do. We know that somebody is being racist, because it’s in the post title, but we don’t know who or why. The race of the student that has been discriminated against might or might not have a bearing on this. I think it is a legitimate point of interest to enquire whether this discrimination arises from a deliberate government policy, or from an official powerless in the face of a computer glitch.
You clearly don’t understand the definition of racism…
I think it is your definition of racism that I don’t understand. I’m quite au fait with the one in the dictionary.
Bayard
mind me but in the real world I have never encountered anything remotely resembling “a computer glitch” when it comes to immigrants.
If you have spent time in a refugee camp or a state facility where refugees are held until they are deported – (in Germany that would be the beautiful city of Nürnberg e.g. the same city where the beautful NSDAP party rally area was located and the trial of the same name took place – sry for being so sarcastic) – then you will realize that control is the Alpha and Omega of the system.
If a glitch it is, that would be deliberatley counted in by the system administrators.
sry if I am harsh. Don´t mean to.
But the refugee issue becomes worse every year for 30 years (well when the Wall came down).
And instead of pointing out that 2022 NATO has officially added immigrants as a national security threat to Europe the governments are now scapegoating the AfD and Co. which will give those same governments the chance to make things even worse without anyone noticing.
Just today they announced that they intend to recruit Georgia as an official border state to deport immigrants back.
I recently visited a friend who is being housed in a hostel whilst awaiting the outcome of their claim for asylum. The staff were professional and minimally polite behind which, something ferocious lurked. I spoke to a knowledgeable person a few days later and mentioned the behaviour of said staff and I was told this was probably to defend the residents of the place because they are some of the most exploitable people in the country.
I hadn’t realised just how vulnerable they are until it was explained to me.
yeah, this is all rather maddening…
I sometimes feel that one´s own priviledged position as a “spectator” puts you in an akward spot since at the same time, what are you doing? Protest? Fight the police force?
In Germany, but I assume this is true for any nation, police prefers to suddenly show up in the early hours 4-6 o´ clock when people are most likely to be sleepy to pick up immigrants for deportation.
(I actually thought that the movie “Official Secrets” did pretty well on this issue without making it overly sentimental. May be because the director Gavin Hood has a background as a lawyer I believe.)
AG, I am long past the stage, both physically and metaphysically, of fighting the police force. They do what they are told – mostly.
A while ago I came across an adult slowly beating a cat to death with a frying pan. An essayed intervention, lead to me beating an immediate retreat to the local police station. Upon relating the incident to the officer behind the desk, I was told to “fuck off” – though to be fair, I am scruffy and look unimportant .An example of the police not doing what they are told.
To counter-balance this example, around the same time, I was attacked and set on fire. Fortunately, thanks to the aid of about 10 members of the public I was not seriously injured. In retrospect, I always laugh when I remember this because as they charged towards me to put me out, I thought they were attacking me and attempted to defend myself, lashing out wildly. It was only when my arms became trapped in their coats with which they were attempting to extinguish the flames, that they could knock me to the floor and were able complete their mission.
The two officers I interacted with in relation to this crime were outstanding, even when it became clear to them that I would not be willing to give evidence through fear and possibly that the perpetrators were known to me. If any senior officer were aware how these two young people attempted to apply their knowledge and powers to a very difficult case and adapt it to my concerns, I like to think they would be very proud of these exemplars – they added a desperately needed positive to what was an extremely negative experience, as, of course, did the brave passers-by who reacted instantaneously to my combustion. I wonder how I might react when confronted by a flaming person? Some might remember the incident at a Scottish airport which occurred several years ago.
The knowledgeable person I spoke to concerning the vulnerabilities of asylum seekers, suggested that local OCG’s (Organised Criminal Groups) target the hostels as a matter of course and have been known to fight amongst themselves for the right to solely exploit these places and the people who live within them. They even went as far as to suggest that new forms of OCG have arisen just to harvest these resources.
I have a friend who works for Border Force (he was previously Customs) at a major airport. Like so many other public services their budget has been slashed and pay increases have been minimal since 2010. Because he is on top of his payscale and pension contributions have been greatly increased, he actually takes home less in cash terms (nb, not real terms) than he did 10 years ago. The system is at breaking point. They also have to suffer the dreaded civil service ‘fast-track’ scheme whereby their bosses have no practical experience and just want to make a quick impression before moving on. Most of the staff are checking passports so very few actually stop people for customs checks. It is a smuggler’s paradise. Whereas they used to get tip-offs from foreign agencies, whereby they could track suspects through the airport and liaise with police drug squads to follow them and get the ringleaders, this just doesn’t happen now because neither customs nor the police have the resources. All this is a very long-winded way of saying don’t blame the Border Force staff at the airports. They are over-worked, underpaid, have lost a lot of good people and have been stripped of any initiative for following leads or using compassion/discretion. If the ‘computer says no’ there is bugger all they can do. The culprits lie further up the chain in the poisonous atmosphere of the Home Office.
I don’t disagree. Click on the “deprofessionalisation” link above for some more perspective.
Thank you for the link. As soon as I started reading, I remembered seeing the piece last year! Still 100% correct and there are so many other examples. Deprofessionalisation is one word. ‘Dumb-sizing’ is another. Offering redundancy to an HMRC tax inspector to save £50k a year, while ignoring the fact that they bring in £5million a year in unpaid tax. Rotating staff (the dreaded fast-tracking again) every other year so that somebody in, say, an energy regulator who finally knows what they are doing is replaced by somebody from the Ministry of Agriculture! Then people wonder why energy/water companies run rings round their regulators (and yes, that one is based on personal experience in a previous life).
On your tax inspector example: That could well be by design, as the following example from Germany shows.
In 2009, psychiatrist Thomas Holzmann was found guilty of wilfully giving false expert opinions on certain tax inspectors in Frankfurt. The administration of the state of Hesse had used this to force these tax inspectors into retirement, after just mobbing them savagely had not done the job. Their offence: Doing their job properly in the wrong cases, including one involving dirty money of the state’s leading party (CDU).
If you can read German or are willing to use an automatic translation, you can find the details here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steuerfahnder-Aff%C3%A4re
“Then people wonder why energy/water companies run rings round their regulators ”
Could it be that that is the desired effect?
@ Parchester
You have a point but there comes a time when “I was only obeying orderz” is not enough. How bad does it have to get before people leave rather than collaborate?
“How bad does it have to get before people leave rather than collaborate?”
Easier said than done, when you’re in your 50s and been doing the job your whole life with no real prospect of alternative employment. You hang in there, trying to maintain what professionalism you still can, in the hope that sanity will eventually prevail or, more likely, you can retire early, probably on stress-related ill health grounds.
Russian and Chinese are quite tricky to master.
I’m genuinely curious about what you’re implying here, Tom Welsh – are you suggesting that Parchester is a Russian, or Chinese, State asset simply because they’re pointing out the reality of the working conditions* on the ground?
*which I still don’t believe excuses the employee(s) of such an egregious act of abrogating their legal duties… Like it should at least have been “oh, the computer says ‘no’ but rather than be Little Britain about it I’ll kick this up the chain because it doesn’t add up with the valid documentation”
NotaToryFanboy, I was observing that whereas Russia and China might be attractive destinations for people fleeing from Western prejudice and tyranny, one would have to learn their languages (and customs) first. That would be difficult.
Although recently I have been seeing quite a few stories of Americans, in particular, who have moved to Russia – often with their families – and found the change invigorating.
What the hell are you on about? Even your ‘clarification’ makes no sense at all.
A deliberate policy of random harassment? Something inspired by Five, Six or one of the alphabets? Someone having a laugh?
Funny you mention five Squeeth, even funnier you mention six. If i had read your comment more closely when you posted it, I wouldn’t have spent the the last few days trying and failing to create what was staring me in the face. i couldn’t see the wood for the trees – I can now, thanks
The treatment of this individual certainly is disgraceful and a blot on the UK’s treatment of people who are in the main short term visitors as the great majority of students return to their original country on completion of their course of studies and in doing so count towards the emigration statistics. However from a quick reading of the visa situation regarding students from abroad it would not be surprising to find system failures given the complications caused by Brexit and Covid – 19 when many students had to cancel or postpone their visas and the system is just beginning to catch up with these complications. See https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2022/recent-changes-to-visa-numbers-in-home-office-data.
Surely if the student paid visa and course fees by some dodgy psychopathic loan shark, then that should be reason enough to not to admit them? Does the application not ask for source of funds that were quite possibly falsified. The point of allowing people in to study is to accept those that are likely not to be either a financial, public order or legal burden on the country.
There is nothing in the details here that suggests racism, though it might be harsh not to be provided fair warning and/or explanation. Nor lunatic. Getting embroiled in third world gangsterism in order to burnish your diverse credentials could be considered lunatic.
Further lunacy is keeping them in the country and allowing extended accommodation and legal costs to mount.
That is an argument that there were legitimate grounds to refuse a student visa. In which case the student visa should have been refused, a decision letter issued, including the right of appeal.
The point is that no legal process was followed. The visa was issued, then declared to be cancelled, though it has not in fact been cancelled nor the legal process for that decision followed either.
But as for your substantive point, nonsense. An arrangement that goes “you lend me 50 grand. I will qualify as a lawyer, then I will be in a position to repay you 10 grand a year for 10 years giving you 100 grand” would not be unusual. If you then spent a significant proportion of the 50 grand and got returned without the qualification unable to pay, you would be in hot water. Perfectly understandable.
Not really. If a legitimate lender did his due diligence, took a risk on you and lost out, no big deal. You lose, they lose, you both learn from it an move on. They lose money, you lose time, effort, reputation and credit rating. Both are motivated that it works out.
If you go to a psycho who will kill you if you do not pay them back, then any kinks in the process due to illness, bad luck, administrative carelessness leave you highly motivated to do whatever is necessary to acquire the necessary funds, then you become the sort of risk that no serious country concerned about its citizens should take on board. Whatever is necessary includes serious crime after all. And even if it works out, you are a prime mark for future extortion.
We should be taking care that any loans from applicants are within acceptable risk and behavioral profiles. They should have significant personal collateral as part of the deal, not be the educational equivalent of 115% mortgages. It is seriously worrying if you consider this as nonsense.
I think your experience of real conditions in developing countries is rather scant. But nothing you write addresses the core problem here of the Border Force failing to follow its own laws.
I have spent probably similar time developing countries as you have, yet not subject to club class travel nor civil service per diems, and not in capital cities with the movers and shakers, but primarily in rural locations dealing day to day and minute by minute with the locals as part of geophysical exploration. So yes, I have a strong respect for those working for their lives and their families, but also a hell of a lot of experience of the other ones who will happily exploit / mug / con any passing goldmine for anything that they think they can acquire.
You still have not addressed anything that shows things to be racist or idiotic, merely potentially harsh and unfair. As a country our resources are limited and should be offered to those most in need, most deserving and most beneficial, not those with the sharpest elbows.
I also have a wife from a similar part of the world to yours and have personal experience of inconvenience, cost and delays due to home office delays, incompetence and inflexibility.
If you have more detail you can share on the story, I could easily be convinced to change my mind, but at the moment the post is basically anyone who does not agree with me is a racist.
“The student was told they would simply be deported immediately back. They therefore entered a claim of political asylum – something they had no intention whatsoever of doing when they boarded the plane with their student visa. Their grounds included that they had borrowed the money for their course fees, travel and maintenance, from people who would now kill them if they returned with no means to repay.”
This makes no sense. They don’t just give you tens of thousands of pounds upon completion of a degree, do they?
This person would have to find work and save for many years to be able to “pay back” their course fees, just like every other student.
And who on Earth borrows money from somebody who will kill you if you can’t repay it? This whole story is nonsense.
Please explain, Mr Murray.
I will explain to you and the numerous other halfwits who appear to read this blog.
The point is not the asylum claim. The point is the denial of entry on the student visa without following any of the lawful procedures involved in that.
You are aware that it is possible to fake visas and/or steal passports?
Have you personally verified any of the claims of this student turned asylum seeker (proof of identity, proof of issuance of a genuine visa, proof of university place, proof of funds, proof that said funds were borrowed from a murderous loan shark who will definitely follow through with the murder if not repaid?)
If you have verified any of these claims, HOW did you verify them?
Actually, don’t bother.
This “halfwit” is off to find someone more on his own intellectual level
Bye
The visa is not fake. There is no claim by UK Border that it is fake. Yes I have met him and reviewed the documentation. it is entirely genuine. Naturally I did that before writing about it.
You have come here and made a number of entirely bogus claims to support the illegal actions of the UK immigration authorities. The question is why.
My assumption is that the student PRETENDED to be a political refugee in order to get in. If true, then the debate about loan sharking etc becomes irrelevant. Fast thinking on the student’s part; I don’t think I’d be able to swing it myself.
Re the computer saying no, I read some years ago about the post office scandal that actully it was the fraud team themselves (Fujitsu staff?) who fixed the system to blame the sub-postmasters and pocketed the spoils themselves. No proof at the moment but that does seem a distinct possibility and cover-up.
Back to the student, I’d want to see some proof that the computer actually did say no; so far we’ve only got the verbal explanation of the border force individuals. I’m a lot more cynical these days than some years ago.
C’mon Craig, you raise a valid point but one that is associated with a very emotive issue. You must have been aware that by raising this issue you were going to open the pandora’s box ?
Insulting people who’s emotions you’ve triggered is hardly fair, is it Mr Ambassador?
You want me to apologise for triggering racists?
The level of entitlement displayed by racists is absolutely obscene and, frankly, surreal.
How about the racists apologise for being racist and hard of thinking?
Rather like those Reptiles, Crustaceans, and Arachnids that periodically shed their outer coatings, the ‘System’ as it has existed since 91 is undergoing a vaguely similar process, as it has done periodically probably since we humans arrived on the scene. Clearly, those who have made their way up, or profited from the systems current incarnation, will be aware that things are changing. It’s a time of struggle that has really only just become apparent, and great effort will be expended by the current ascendency in trying to prevent the inevitable.
To that end, and with the huge opportunity given by the internet and blogs such as CM’s here for cogent debate, it’s also the case that those who would resist ‘Peaceful Change’ will become increasingly resentful of free discourse that may run counter to what any ascendency perceive as their best interest. That’s a long winded way of saying that back in the day when we were all blokes or lady’s down the pub, the PTB had no worries. These days opinions can reach much further than the local scene, and are much more dangerous.
As CM points out, with the 77th and no doubt myriad other state actors observing centres of online debate, having reasonably well thought out opinions that may run counter to the narrative, could result in difficulties when attempting such things as travel.
Whilst things here are unlikely to reach the levels employed by the Chinese Social Credit scheme, or the tactics of the infamous StaSi, its entirely likely that those who are perceived to be overactive in social debate may well experience some level of embuggerance.
If however you are a stranger from a foreign land, it’s remarkably easy to block even authorised entry with only very slight risk of comeback. In this case it receives some oxygen of publicity thanks to the efforts of CM, but I do wonder if the individual in question has not been made persona non grata by some expressed views that offend the status quo ?
The fact that this applicant immediately raised an asylum claim based on vengeful loan sharks, with sufficient success not to be deported raises a huge red flag that they were aware something was dodgy about their visa or the claims and evidence it was based upon, and had games what to do if challenged.
The visa is perfectly genuine. The university place is real. The fees are paid. All you have is racial prejudice.
It’s your apparently unsupported claim of “racial prejudice” that makes some of us worry that you yourself might be exhibiting prejudice.
Having carefully read your article and all the comments, I cannot see any statement that has anything to do with racial prejudice.
It occurs to me that you may be one of those people who, being unable to think of any other reason why someone might be opposed to immigration, ascribe it to racial prejudice.
I don’t care where people come from or whether they are red, white, blue, or candy-striped. My only concern is that in a country that is already massively overpopulated and could not feed even half of the people already here without importing food, it seems unwise to encourage more immigration.
My chief concern at the moment that on a post that details very carefully abuse of process and multiple failures by the Border Force to obey their own laws, the interest of many commenters here is to find justification for keeping the immigrant out.
Correction he is not even an immigrant, just one of the huge number of foreign students who contribute so much to the economy while here.
A concern over ties to organized crime isn’t a racial prejudice (though frankly some ethnic mafias are more notorious & powerful than others). After all a small-time loan shark is hardly likely to punt tens of thousands on a long-term deal like this.
I note you didn’t even imply that part of the story *wasn’t* true and simply quick thinking BS on the student’s part.
If the fees etc, *were* in fact paid for by money procured via illegal means, from a criminal syndicate. Doesn’t that void the issuance of the Visa to start with?
As for the failure to inform. Ha! I’m sure everyone here will be shocked to find that the British state isn’t a paragon of speed & efficiency.
I have no idea whether the loan shark story is true, or made up on the spot in desperation.
The point is, that he ought never to have been put in that position. He was put under that massive pressure by the Border Force acting illegally towards him.
“The fact that this applicant immediately raised an asylum claim based on vengeful loan sharks, with sufficient success not to be deported raises a huge red flag that they were aware something was dodgy about their visa or the claims and evidence it was based upon.”
What would you have done in that situation? Said “Oh, that’s OK then, I’ll just go home and put the thousands of pounds this has cost me down to experience”? Quite possibly the story about the loan sharks was made up, but so what? As Craig keeps pointing out, but you seem unwilling to understand, possibly because it might upset a few cherished prejudices, that’s not the point of this post. The point of this post is the arbitrary rescinding of the visa, which occurred before (please read that again, before) the student came out with his asylum claim and would have been just the same if the student had meekly walked away.
As Craig has said before, the UK Border Force checking people on arrival don’t seem to trust the visa services that grant the visas. As the visa services are now mostly privatised and online, under-staffed by relatively unskilled people, far removed from the applicants, not in a position to really assess who is applying and whatever paperwork they are providing. Last time I came into The UK through Manchester airport, I waited 3 hours at immigration as Border Force were painstakingly re-checking paperwork for people who were already lined up with all the correctly granted visas.
I imagine something similar has happened here – Border Force at some point found something that visa services had either missed, or weren’t paid to look for in his application. But it’s ridiculous they won’t tell the guy what that is, give him a chance to either refute the discovery or be properly deported for the right reasons. They could be correct – maybe the guy spent the last 3 months at an Al Qaeda training camp in Helmand, intelligence the visa services wouldn’t have access to. But as it is, they’ve just created another interminable asylum case to get lost in the system for goodness knows how many years.
…maybe the guy spent the last 3 months at an Al Qaeda training camp in Helmand, or has a record for multiple armed robberies in Albania – there could be multiple reasons that didn’t show up in the visa application process and were caught later, we wouldn’t know, Craig wouldn’t know, his current asylum lawyers wouldn’t know, but the point is they need to tell him, and let him either refute or be deported quickly and for the right reasons.
BTW, yes, his current asylum claim must be completely bogus. It was made up on the spur of the moment and the loan shark story is full of holes. But that’s not the point – the point is a system that put him there in the first place, rather than a professional, transparent, fair and efficient visa and immigration service.
“…maybe the guy spent the last 3 months at an Al Qaeda training camp in Helmand, or has a record for multiple armed robberies in Albania. ”
If that was the case he would’ve been arrested on the spot. People have been detained under terror legislation for much less.
Can’t believe that anybody didn’t twig immediately that his asylum claim was bogus. Well done him on a bit of quick thinking. Possibly the Border Force realise it too but either have to follow the rules or think they’re doing him a favour as opposed to sending him back.
People do borrow money from loan sharks who will harm or kill if not paid back. It’s called desperation.
They need some publicly stated reasons when barring a George Raft, or a Jerry Lee Lewis. but for the vast majority of decisions they’ll get away with skipping round such niceties ? Were it not for CM bringing this case to our attention, who would have known ? And with all due respect to our esteemed host, mention here is probably only marginally greater than nobody knowing.
From the bare bones of what CM tells us, the individual concerned is coming from a position of some sophistication, as opposed to being a hapless person who can carry their entire lives in a Tesco bag ? That alone suggests that there may be far more to this story than a simple case of the state victimising an innocent person ?
The legalisation of the illegal continues. Compare with Kit Klarenburg’s detention on return from Serbia.
“Notice of Detention under Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019
…
“You have been detained under paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act … You will not be examined under this power for more than 6 hours … You are not under criminal investigation and are not under arrest of suspicion of having committed an offence. For this reason you are not being issued with a caution and you do not have the right to remain silent.”
Part-qualified trainee halfwit here…
My theories:
1. Student was entirely valid and legit, the computerised process screwed up badly, so the unmotivated overworked pissed-off border force official could not be bothered debugging, and subsequently flat-out failed to follow their own rules of issuing a letter detailing the reasons and advising the right of appeal
2. Border force person spotted the 17th instance of someone from Remote Part of World X pretending to be a student and the previous 16 all ended very badly, so the unmotivated overworked [finish off sentence as above]
In short not enough information. If I were actually to have met and spoke face to face with such student I’m slightly sure there would be something my spidey senses would have picked up as an indicator of what was really going on between the two radically opposite explanations?
I think it’s the first, having met the person (and I refuse to help more cases than I assist, based on my own spidey-sense and experience).
But even if it’s the second, the failure to follow legal process by Border Force is the key point. They don’t get to destroy someone’s life chances based on their prejudices and without legal procedure.
Another somewhat qualified, self-confessed halfwit here:
3rd theory is also possible – that Border Force do have some information or intelligence on the individual that came up after the visa was issued, put him on a black list, caused him to be flagged up and denied entry. A visa, however rightfully granted, is not a guarantee of entry.
As Craig says, though, they are not following any legal process, issuing a decision letter and inviting appeal. Possibly because the source of the intelligence is sensitive, more likely due to the unmotivated, overworked [finish off sentence as above].
So nobody is is any position to judge the rights and wrongs of whether this guy should be in The UK, just the rights and wrongs of the process he’s caught up in. Which does seem very wrong to me.
For what it’s worth, if we are judging the loan shark story, I’m not sure it is even political asylum to be running from bad people you borrowed money off because you can’t pay them back.
You say they had the funds and then you say they borrowed the money, effectively, from loan sharks. Not the same thing. It’s also not clear how they would be able to repay the loan after studying here unless they’re working. Something smells and the computer seems to have found it out. Just a shame the Border Farce on our southern border aren’t so hot against those fleeing the patisserie of Calais.
If you have the funds you have the funds. Huge numbers of people borrow the money to attend university.
The point is that none of the legal processes were followed. I have no idea whether the funds were actually borrowed or not – that is not the point.
Even if the money was indeed borrowed from the *insert nationality* mafia?
If that *is* the case then, in a fine show of the premise that all nations are indeed brothers-under’the-skin. People in that line of work, invariably want their f**king money paid back with interest pronto. In cash and/or favours owed.
Could that factor into the mysterious decision taken and the lack of effective communication of same? Given that some information might be coming from abroad though information sharing by law-enforcement.
You seen to be dancing around that part of the issue, that you raised yourself. Which is going to provoke questions and pushback from commenters.
Fuck off you racist and do not come back. Just noted your Calais pâtisserie jibe.
For those of us less well versed on racist phrases, what does “Calais pâtisserie” refer to? Haven’t come across it before.
Yeah, google only gives me stuff like “things to do in Calais”…
I can’t work it out at all. So far I have come up with:
1. It’s racist to associate the French with a form of delicious food that they famously do really, really well.
2. It’s racist to suggest that asylum seekers are at leisure to indulge in delicious treats while awaiting their ride to Ryde.
On the whole, I would guess that Mr Murray is incensed by any comments that sound as if they might be derogatory to people currently in other countries who want to come to Britain – no matter how tenuously connoted.
Or perhaps that suggest an attitude of undue levity or lack of caring.
I think someone is trying to bring the expression “the fleshpots of…” up to date and make it more descriptive of that particular locale. The inference seems to be that these asylum seekers are living well in France before they embark on their attempt to come to England.
“Just noted your Calais pâtisserie jibe”.
Oh dear, sense of humour failure. I noticed that remark and smiled appreciatively. Do you really consider it racist to mention France’s celebrated skill with pastry?
Thank goodness he didn’t mention petits fours – let alone frogs and snails.
Tom, I believe you’ve written your comment in good faith, but it seems you’re not understanding. I see why Mr. Murray called commentator Goodwin a racist. As your friend, Tom, may I suggest my analysis:
Commentor Goodwin replaces Border Guard with Border Farce, this is a modality, substitution with smth derogatory, thus, the commentor does not approve of the mentioned.
He goes on to say bluntly that he would like them to treat ‘those fleeing the patisserie of Calais’ somewhat ‘hot against’ (I don’t know what is ‘hot’ still I understand ‘against’).
The Border Guard interact with people, so ‘those fleeing the patisserie of Calais’ are apparently people. In English ‘those fleeing the patisserie of Calais’ it would be smth like ‘Calais bakery runaways’.
This is racist in many ways.
It is about regret that the Guard ‘aren’t so hot against runaways’.
It is about calling people ‘bakery runaways’.
It is about mentioning ‘patisserie of Calais’ – they offer specialty coffee cakes.
Personally, I gather from this that the commentator Goodwin means the color of the skin and is unhappy that the Guard is not severe enough with these people. @Goodwin, am I right?
—
So, Tom, it would be nice of you to offer your sincere apology. I’d be glad to see it.
Tatyana, thank you for the logical break down, however what still has me confused is whether asylum seekers possessing more melatonin in their skin than others are considered to have typically worked in a French boulangerie / patisserie before attempting the crossing from Calais? I wasn’t aware of such a connotation and am surprised to learn about it. If I had managed to get a job working for such an establishment, I sure as Hell wouldn’t bother fleeing from it to England!
Which is what makes me assume something more sinister / “dark humour” is intended by such a reference, I am just baffled by what that could be.
Nota Tory Fanboy
I had to Google that French phrase. I’m a woman and I’m a housewife, perhaps that is the reason why I got lots of images of light brown pastries, and also recipes with bitter almond and coffee. Perhaps Goodwin didn’t imply this particular connotation, I cannot say for sure.
I live in Russia and we have all sorts of racist jokes and derogatory names here. ‘Baked people’ is one. Perhaps Goodwin didn’t imply this connotation either, I cannot say for sure again.
Even if he meant ‘bakery employees’ I’m sure he didn’t mean French citizens, as those have no reasons to ‘flee’ anywhere. I learned Geography, I know what is Pas de Calais, and I think Goodwin had in mind immigrants crossing the channel.
Anyway, he did say that Guard would rather treat them in a special way. This is absolutely obvious. He used ‘hot’. I know several meanings of the word, neither of them may mean ‘good’ in that context.
“So, Tom, it would be nice of you to offer your sincere apology. I’d be glad to see it”.
I’m afraid that I must respectfully decline. I have written nothing to apologise for; and I must say that I find it impossible to understand the logic of your comment.
“This is racist in many ways”.
I can’t see that at all. There was no mention of any “race” – a concept, by the way, which I find hard to accept and of doubtful validity.
I presume I am dealing here with a single racist nutter operating multiple identities. If I thought this many inhabited this blog, I would close it down.
Legislation designed to protect individuals from government overreach always seems to have a get-out clause “does not apply if for reasons of national security or prevention of crime.”
So I wonder what happens if an identified operative of a foreign intelligence service (a spy) presents themselves at a port of entry? My guess is that is an instance when Border Force legitimately can make an arbitrary decision to arrest or deport them. Many people (who believe the Skripal story) moan that this did not happen when the “Salisbury Tourists” arrived.
Not saying Craig’s student was a spy but then again spies are secret aren’t they and you wouldn’t know.
Except they then let him in. And did not cancel his student visa, which if this was genuine should have had a large diagonal cross rules through it and a cancelled stamp applied. This is not that.
Well spitballing here:
Gratuitous overcompensation for incompetence from an oft derided branch of state?
Assuming this makes the press, then throwing red-meat to baying tories/Ukippers who think wogs begin at Calais?
Somebody just plain cocked-up somewhere?
Corruption at the university, to pocket the fees of vulnerable students, so they can double-dip on student placements?
The AI’s slowly gaining sentience & becoming malevolent?
The way things stand these days, there’s a lot of grim options.
Like a criminal investigation too many suspects, can be as bad as having none…
I had left you to it remember. When you come back and start calling me and others a halfwit and worse after putting entirely made up words in my mouth (another act of sophistry) I am not going to sit back and say nothing.
Labelling 10,000 employees of Border Force as ‘lunatics’ and ‘racists’ without even knowing why this person was refused entry is essentially a childish tantrum. It is also a disgusting smear on many good hard working people. You know it, which is why when challenged just slightly here you instantly start smearing people and insulting them. It is a way to deflect away from the complete lack of evidence for your claims of racism.
Maybe you should close the blog down if this what you really think. I certainly am losing a lot of respect for you here. Sadly it is not the first time you’ve pulled this kind of crap out. The only person triggered is you, madness.
“without even knowing why”
The point is that we *should* all know why because the UK Border Force *should* have acted within the law and provided their justification in writing etc.
But they didn’t. So we don’t.
And the fact that they didn’t even bother to try even the first step along that process is because they don’t believe that they should “waste” their time abiding by the law with regard to this foreigner. Because by accident of birth they weren’t born on the same land mass.
Interesting how so many bad faith commentators’ first response is to believe that, in spite of stacks of evidence to the contrary across many similar branches of State – including the FCO publishing documents on its website containing the “n”-word, this couldn’t possibly have been racism.
Never mind that most of these bad faith commentators don’t even know what the definition of racism is.
If you support Starmer’s Labour then _you_ are a bad-faith commentator on the issue of racism.
Please do educate me on how you inferred I support Starmer’s version of Labour (left wing cut out) from my comments?
I infer it from your moniker. It suggests you’d approve of Starmer’s racist Labour centrists being in power.
Seriously Reza? Simply being anti-Tory equates to being pro-Starmer? I’m actually more pro-Green but, sadly recognising the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of FPTP, it’s pretty clear that the best we can currently hope for is a coalition government that is majority Labour. And I would absolutely include SNP in that coalition, until such time as Scotland is finally able to escape from beneath England’s jackboot. Also, given that I’m pro-Scottish Independence (already expressed in other comments here), how does that sound pro-Starmer? Is Labour the only other party that exists in your mind?
I chose the moniker when replying beneath another of Mr. Murray’s posts to a commentator who was obviously a Tory fanboy.
“Labelling 10,000 employees of Border Force as ‘lunatics’ and ‘racists’”
The title to this post is “Government By Uncontrolled Lunatic Racists”. I wasn’t aware that we were governed by the Border Force. I’ll definitely have to be nicer to my neighbour, I didn’t realise I lived next to a member of the government.
I guess the point is who directs the UK Border Force: the UK Government. Which means, like the Civil Service, it should be a branch of State that operates in the national interest, independently of the government flavour of the day. Unfortunately, as is pretty obvious, it is apparently subject to the basest whims of those least suitable to govern yet have somehow made it to Public Office.
“They therefore entered a claim of political asylum – something they had no intention whatsoever of doing when they boarded the plane with their student visa. Their grounds included that they had borrowed the money for their course fees, travel and maintenance, from people who would now kill them if they returned with no means to repay.”
From a legal point of view he won’t get anywhere with those grounds unless he claims persecution.
“We can’t tell you because it’s confidential” is so British. The official might as well have said “F*** off, b*tch”, because it means the same. Mind you, there’s not much mileage in explaining to them what “because” means, and what a “reason” is.
Can you say which airport? I’m guessing Heathrow.