Monday, July 30, 2018

Policy Exchange, right wing think-tank uses the Windrush scandal to call on post-Brexit ID system for EU and UK citizens, in the past this has been rejected on civil liberties grounds, with so much illegal immigration into the UK, is it time to review this issue, can there be cross party consensus on protecting the UK borders?














Dear All

Think tanks are bodies that come up with ideas, in the past, some ideas have been useful and other ideas border on plain stupidity. If you take the ‘Windrush’ scandal, the reason for the problem is that the Labour Government of the time; ordered their documents destroyed. Down the line, this meant the incumbent government of Theresa May couldn’t do their job properly, leading to confusion and problems. Brexit is still moving forward, the Policy Exchange thinks that there is a case for a ID registration system for EU citizens in the UK and also for British citizens.

In many walks of life, the ID card system is already here, in education, in construction, police and in health, even private companies have id systems to allow their staff access to their premises. Previously in the UK, we had an ID card system during WW2, the scheme continued well after the end of the war and then was phased out. There is a case for an ID card system, and a case not for a card system, in several posts, I wrote about the need for an EU wide identity card to cope with the migrant crisis.

Illegal migrants need to be documented, and we need to know where they are and who they are since the political elite opened the flood gates and let these people roam free in our country and others in the EU. I have no problem with EU citizens being issued with an ID card; similar schemes operate in other countries of the EU. But if there is to be an extended ID card programme to document British citizens, it cannot similar be about the issuing of a card. It is said that there are one million illegal immigrants in this country, these people are criminals, and should be removed, no matter how long they have been here.

The idea of a national ID system for British citizens has been controversial, with many people opposing it on civil liberties grounds. The state of politics in this country means that one group plays off against the other group which we all know as party politics, civil liberties are just the ‘peg’ that they use to hang their grievance on. 

A £5 billion national identity card scheme was introduced by the last Labour government in 2006 under Tony Blair, probably to bring us more into line with European practice. The idea wasn’t acceptable and a Bill to scrap it was the first legislation introduced by Theresa May when she became home secretary in 2010. After Brexit, EU citizens already in the UK will have to pay £65 and join a registration scheme if they wish to stay in Britain after the end of the transition period on December 31 2020.

£65 isn’t a high fee, and I think the government has got the balance right.

David Goodhart, Policy Exchange's head of demography, immigration and integration, suggests that the scheme should be widened to Britons, initially on a voluntary basis. In other words, voluntary first then turned into compulsory.

He said:

"We strongly recommend reopening the debate about ID management to reassure people that we know who is in the country, for how long, and what their entitlements are. A proper national ID system would have prevented the harassment of the Windrush victims."

I never favour knee jerk politics as a basis for making policy, usually, a single incident is used to justify an idea which the authors aren’t able to articulate on its own merits, hence they find a victim.

The report by the Policy Exchange has other ideas:

A more decisive removals process, the current system has been abused using the Human Rights Act as an opened ended book to concoct the most ridiculous decisions.

An amnesty for illegal immigrants who have been in the UK for 10 years or more, this is unacceptable, we don’t reward people for crime because they have been doing it a long time.

More cash to pay illegal immigrants to leave and a joint scheme involving the Department for International Development to help them set up businesses in their countries of origin, I see no problem with this idea.

A British version of the US Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA) that allows non-UK citizens to use e-gates at borders and made it quicker for "low-risk groups" to enter, this is idea has merit provide the scheme is secure.

Make rail and ferry operators provide more information about passengers and introduce more collaboration with Irish authorities to close down the Common Travel Area "backdoor", private companies shouldn’t have to act as border agents, this would create a security problem.

Higher overall investment, including better detection systems for lorries at Calais and Dover, more staff and more border patrol boats, this isn’t setting the heather on fire but if anyone is found, we should send them back to France without judicial review, instant deportation.

The farce of letting them in has gone on too long.

Mr Goodhart added:

"Illegal immigration is not only unfair on legal immigrants who wait their turn in the queue and the employers and businesses who play (and pay) by the rules, it also fosters a twilight world of criminality, dependence and exploitation in which modern slavery flourishes. Combating illegal immigration should be overtly linked to minimum wage enforcement, private landlord licensing and action against modern slavery. While a general amnesty for the estimated 500,000 illegal residents here would send the wrong signal, some form of regularisation should also be considered for those who have been here for more than 10 years, who are now parts of their communities with ties to the UK and often become the focus of grassroots campaigns."

Everyone should play by the rules and no one should be getting special treatment, this has been the cause of division in this and other EU States.

A Home Office spokesman said:

"We are pursuing an ambitious programme of reform at the border as well as investing in new capability to improve passenger experience. Examples of this include e-Passport gates and motion detection technology which benefit passengers and improve security. Border Force invested £63.5 million in new technology and capability in 2017-18 and £90.4 million in the two previous years combined. Decisions on the future immigration system will be based on evidence. This is why we have asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to advise on the economic and social impacts of the UK's exit from the EU and also on how the UK's immigration system should be aligned with a modern industrial strategy."

If you are the type of person who gets angry when someone breaks into your house to steal, then you should be equally angry when someone breaks into your country to steal, the fact they aren’t lifting your possessions is irrelevant. The madness of Germany’s migrant crisis, the crisis in Sweden, Italy and France, show what happens when rules are abandoned for political virtual signalling, chaos, rape, murder, theft and acts of terror.

I favour a fair, strong immigration system based on evidence, need and cohesion, sadly the open borders people are the facilitators of much of the current problems, if you don’t have strong borders, you don’t have security, just ask the Germans. Immigration is a good thing, what has happened in Europe and in the UK has been exceptionally bad, it is time that someone cleaned up the mess.

Finally, Angela Merkel ruined Germany by her open borders policy, in the UK, much of the damage was done by Tony Blair when Labour Prime Minister, his social engineering experiment done under the 'lie of economic reasons' caused many of the problems of a similar nature to Germany's troubles.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University   

No comments: