Windrush Generation

No. Heads did roll in the past Baggs Now they don't. I think the philosophy is it will be a 9 days wonder and if you can ride it out it won't matter.

I see. So basically you think the current Tory government is corrupt to the core?

I can't see that it does - the fact that someone is here illegally ie knowingly violating the laws of the land is surely proof in itself?

But you don't know if they are illegal until it has been proven. Do you not understand the concept of innocent until proved guilty?

If you wish to hold to Baggs' analogy the 'punishment' for being here illegally is deportation. Under British law you cannot be 'punished' until your guilt has been proved.

So basically you think the current Tory government is corrupt to the core?

You've nailed it, Baggs

There might be the odd honourable exception...

Is it unreasonable, maiz, to suppose that apart from those few members of the Windrush influx who did not have necessary papers in recent years, then if you can't show that you are in a country legally, either as a visitor or a worker, then you are here illegally. Do you really think that people coming to a country don't know they'll need a passport or visa of some kind?

And if you are here illegally, then being booted out is what to expect.

I'd certainly expect that if I went anywhere without proper permission.

By the same basis then Baggs if you are in a shopping centre and a shop is robbed is it reasonable for everyone in the shopping centre to be considered as guilty and held in custody until they can prove they are innocent?

That isn't the same basis.

It's exactly the same basis- you are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent and if you can't we are entitled to hold/deport/ban you.

Trisher
Consider: You are sat in the back garden enjoying the sun. After an hour or so you return to the kitchen to find a couple in there, the woman eyeing what's in your fridge. You notice that a small pile of ironing had been done, but there is a bill on top of it. As the gent takes a bite of your lunch sandwich. You ask who they are, how they got in and ask them to leave your home.
They retort that you looked to have a nice house and standard of living so they decided to share this with you, they will continue to do your ironing at a cost, but as they have now been in your home for more than one hour they will stay as it fully meet their needs.
Right or wrong?

No, it isn't the same basis. Immigrants need certain documents. If they haven't got them it's perfectly obvious that they shouldn't be here, except in exceptional circumstances.

Being asked to provide proof of something isn't the same as being suspected of guilt. We are all asked for proofs of ID for all sorts of things.

Baggs do you not understand these people were given Indefinite Leave to Remain- something that they thought gave them equal rights with people who were born in the UK. Now personally I don't keep documents showing where I was working for the last 50 years and I don't think many of us do. The proof being asked for isn't ID no one is disputing who they are. They are being asked to provide proof that they came as children and have lived here ever since. And some forms of proof have been rejected. It would help if you read around the subject before posting.

"Being asked to provide proof of something isn't the same as being suspected of guilt."

But your analogy was with people breaking the law. You're now proposing that immigrants suspected of being 'illegal' are treated differently from others suspected of lawbreaking. Your analogy doesn't hold under those circumstances You're proposing vigilante tactics. As was May; 'deport first, ask questions later'.

But the point is Jalima1108 that it wasn't put right immediately and that people with a perfect right to be here have suffered.
Yes, I take your point - this should have been picked up and put right a very long time ago.

if you can't show that you are in a country legally, either as a visitor or a worker, then you are here illegally. Do you really think that people coming to a country don't know they'll need a passport or visa of some kind?
And if you are here illegally, then being booted out is what to expect.
I'd certainly expect that if I went anywhere without proper permission.

I think other countries would be much more pro-active than this one in seeking out and deporting illegal visitors.

Could we get omne thing straight this discussion is about the Windrush generation-people who through no fault of their own have found themselves, after growing up in this country, working in this country, paying taxes in this country, and who believed they were equals with people born here, suddenly find themselves being refused any of the benefits such as healthcare, being incarcerated, refused entry and asked to provide numerous proofs of their lives in order to access benefits or to enter or remain here.
What the hell that has to do with people in my house I don't understand. Unless of course the analogy is that one of my DS's comes around and I deny I have ever known him.

And anyway Boris wants to offer amnesty to illegals who have been here working for 10 years (Now where did that one come from after all his comments during Brexit?)

I was put in a police cell in Bulgaria ( pre BG entering the eu) because they didn't believe who I was.
The worst part was my friend, who I had taken to the police station to register thought it was a big joke and kept laughing.
It did get sorted. At first I was very indignant at their behaviour, but then I thought, no, their right, they know exactly who's in their country, and that's how it should be.

We are always quizzed as to exactly where we will be when we go to Australia.
Going into one of the Baltic States took ages because DD had changed since her passport photo had been taken and I think they thought I was trying to import a different child.

petra

So has anyone here asked you to prove who you are? Asked for where. you went to school or where you worked- and pay slips have been refused as evidence! I can't believe anyone would make excuses for this appalling treatment.

Baggs: deport first, hear appeals later

A transcript from Tuesday 22 October 2013 about the Immigration Bill 2014

In a House of Commons debate, Mrs May said:

“I will set out the elements of the Bill in context. First, the Bill will cut abuse of the appeal process. It will streamline the labyrinthine legal process, which at present allows appeals against 17 different Home Office decisions—17 different opportunities for immigration lawyers to cash in and for immigrants who should not be here to delay their deportation or removal. By limiting the grounds for appeal to four—only those that engage fundamental rights—we will cut that abuse.

“Secondly, we will extend the number of non-suspensive appeals so that, where there is no risk of serious and irreversible harm, we can deport first and hear appeals later.

This policy of deport first... was declared illegal in 2017 as deported people don’t have full access to legal advice.

But they didn't chuck you out of Bulgaria before you had a chance to prove who you were, did they Petra?

"17 different opportunities for immigration lawyers to cash in"

How extraordinary. A Tory decrying money making by a private enterprise

So has anyone here asked you to prove who you are? Asked for where. you went to school or where you worked
I'm not making excuses at all, there are none.

I just said what happened to us in other countries - and saying that if we outstayed our visa we would be searched out and escorted on to a plane out of the country.
If we wished to live and work there we would need to go through stringent checks in order to get a working visa.

I had to help DD fill in a very long application form to stay (cost of £thousands too) - they even wanted to know who did the domestic chores eg hanging out the washing, her or her partner. Every certificate, CRB checks, medical certificate etc etc had to be provided.