I was interested to read this report on the BBC which states that companies that employ illegal immigrants are to be named and shamed in a further attempt to crack down on people smuggling. The move by the Home Office comes four months after officials launched a concerted effort to identify and prosecute companies breaking the law. More than 200 companies have already been fined for hiring illegal labour. The Home Office says names of companies and directors are to be published on the UK Border Agency website. The agency will publish how many illegal immigrants the company was employing and how much it was fined. Now I am in in favour of punishing those who break the law and employ illegals however the BBC article is unclear as to how this will affect the likes of The Home Office, and the NHS – which are as guilty as any private sector company when it comes to employing these illegal immigrants. I also wondered how all these illegal immigrants got into the country in the first place – will the UK Border Agency website be providing us with analysis of that?
NAMING AND SHAMING.
Bookmark the permalink.
Good point. Why the private sector and not the public entities that are just as guilty. This has got Jacqui Smith written all over it. The woman is utterly useless.
I wonder if the BBC employs illegals?
These illegal immigrants want to work, but they can be detained for up to 18 months without charge or deportation, apparently habeus corpus doesn’t apply if you aren’t european.
They do at least want to work not maim or kill us.
A half million is probably an underestimate.
You can’t hope to control immigration when you have no idea who is here.
And anyone that thinks these 500,000 plus will just be removed by a few simple measures has no understanding of the true situation in this country.
The genie is out of the bottle and only something truly radical will put it back in.
You’ll all jump down my throat as its hugely radical and far from ideal but a dramatic solution is needed or we will have this problem and worse for the rest of our lives.
I favour an amnesty, all illegals to register with right to work and to qualify for citizenship after 5 years.
But ONLY if combined with:
a complete listing of all who are here in the UK (either ID cards or something similar),
full controls on our points of entry so we know exactly who is here,
an extra tax on the new immigrants 10% and/or a day a week’s community service work for the 5 years,
deportation and lifetime exile for any of those committing an offence for which they receive a custodial sentance.
All the measures would have to happen simultaneously, otherwise itwon’t work.
But its all too radical, so we will just muddle through with things getting worse and any measure a part measure and doomed to failure, the status quo, at least the BBC will be pleased, that’s their preferred position.
The problem with an amnesty is that it just encourages more to come.
The answer is very very simple.
1. Proper border controls (we are an island)
2. Anyone who applies for a job MUST be required to produce proof of their legality to to work here.
3. Employers who don’t carry out those checks and employ illegals face an automatic 5 year prison sentance (that’s the directors)
4. Scrap the “uman rites” act that hasn’t done anything toprotect the ordinary citizen of the UK, but is a charter for terrorists, illegals and nonces to hide behind.
Pot-Kettle-Black: “…but a dramatic solution is needed or we will have this problem and worse for the rest of our lives.”
I agree with that. An overcrowded island, parallel and mutually antagonistic communities, and weak government. This is a recipe for civil war within 50 years.
I wonder how many illegal aliens the BBC employs?
Sorry Martin — juts stepped on your same comment made earlier!
I suspect this has more to do with the economic forecast. While the economy was booming and Britain needed cheap labour, the Government turned a blind eye to illegal immigration. Now that the economy is slowing, they realise that immigrants could become a net drain on resources, so are clamping down.
The illegals got here, so they can get out if they have to. The employers should be fined and those responsible for the decision to engage illegals should be fined, jailed, sacked and barred from directorships, or a combination of the above. Managers in the public sector should be sacked, but that would affect the BBC.
As for civil war, not so! Civil war is a war amongst the same people but what I believe is envisaged by PKB and Ian is war between the British who believe in the nation and the immigrants, the latter supported by the British who wish to destroy Britain (incl. the BBC).
Allan@Oslo: “..but what I believe is envisaged by PKB and Ian is war between the British who believe in the nation and the immigrants, the latter supported by the British who wish to destroy Britain (incl. the BBC).”
Exactly – I would include people of immigrant origin. I would not, however, include recent Polish immigrants in this.
down at the bottom of the article is the ‘BBC fishing for injured party thing’…. with its racist undercurrent…’How will the announcement affect your community’
Not your locality, village, town or city but ‘your community.’
I suspect you’ll find the Home Office and NHS don’t actually employ the illegal immigrants themselves. These immigrants will typically do the sort of job that is subcontracted, so it is the subcontractor, not the public body that takes the rap.
At the end of the BBC report on illegal immigrants are the following questions:
“Have you been affected by any of the issues in this story? Will your business be affected? How will the announcement affect your community?
What do you think the answers the Beeb is touting for?
I hate to split hairs, but technically it was a subcontractor who hired the illegals. Techclean should have its government contract terminated immediately, of course, but one can’t hold the Home Office entirely responsible. If they don’t switch cleaning companies and vet their employees, then they do deserve twice the criticism of anyone else.
I don’t think it’s really correct to blame the Home Office’s failure to follow up on all those expired visas, etc., for the illegal worker problem, mainly because I don’t believe that’s a viable solution.
We have the same problem in the US, with the same failure of government to keep track of and enforce visa limits, combined with a human smuggling industry that probably dwarfs anything seen in the UK (I mean, let’s face it, we’ve got the majority of one and a half continents as a labor supplier right on our border). It is a problem, as Pot-Kettle-Black pointed out @9:40am, of people coming here to work.
The asylum problem is another issue altogether, and I can’t even deal with that here, but chasing after expired visas and starting now to crack down on borders just isn’t nearly enough. Britain needs to do the same thing some places in the US are starting to do: crack down on employers. If there are enough disincentives, employers just won’t do it. If there are no jobs, the illegals eventually won’t come.
Another solution – one which probably won’t be enforced in Britain because it could be considered racist – is to crack down on money wiring. If business that do that are required by law to ask for proof of legal residence before letting somebody send money back to the home country, the other reason illegals are here will be stopped cold.
If the Home Office doesn’t start programs like that, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.
I have to say, though, there is a real false premise suggest by the BBC at the very end of the article:
Trade union leaders have also raised concerns about the government’s strategy, arguing that it could drive the worst employers further underground, penalising exceptionally poor workers unable to break out of a situation they did not necessarily choose.
Never mind the fact that employers who hire illegals would have to get smaller if they were to go further underground, which is not exactly a good business incentive. How can the BBC put forth the idea that it’s trade union leaders who care about penalizing workers who did not necessarily choose this situation? Since when did trade unions care about victims of human smuggling?
Now, I know that human smugglers bring people in on false pretenses, promising them they’ll get legal jobs and them keeping them illegal, in awful conditions, etc. But those illegal workers are not trade union members, are they? They certainly could end up being union members if the government provides amnesty to all of them, though.
Could it be that the trade union leaders smell a way to get a whole bunch of new dues payers? We have certainly witnessed that phenomenon in the US. And the BBC just spouts the trade union propaganda instead. Interesting.
John Bosworth | 19.06.08 – 2:15 pm
Perhaps someone will answer on behalf of
‘the law-abiding community’ 🙂
I wonder if this will apply to BBC employees and their families and friends who employ illegals as nannies, au pairs etc ?
Might also be worth investigating them to make sure they are not in breach of minimum wage laws.
I take your point guys but well over 500,000 and climbing, to who knows where.
And more to the point no one really knows the true figure, I suspect its a lot higher than that, especially due to those in London.
I just don’t see this mass deportation happening, I think you are all living in a dream world if you think it is.
Not only does it actually need the co-operation of the current illegals to get things sorted now (you may not like it but its true), but it needs the concerted measures to sort the situation out for the future.
Only if both happen simultaneously is there any chance in the real world of actually getting on top of this and staying there.
People want to make money and ways will be found to circumvent peicemeal measures.
You think Brown, clegg or Cameron will implement the draconian measures some of you suggest as alternatives? You are only kidding yourselves if you think so.
No one is going to implement the massive jail sentences on employers, that’s just a dream too, employers would hardly dare employ here for fear of making a mistake, or one of their underlings making a mistake or deliberate error and them getting 5 years, total non starter.
No one is going to sign out of the human rights convention, however much you wish they will, I simply don’t believe you.
If we have to put up with it we should at least make it so our society benefits as I stated.
In an ideal world I wouldn’t begin to suggest this, but we haven’t got an ideal world, that’s the problem.
It may be radical as a solution but restoring order and an older better way is also conservative.
Trouble is everyone reacts as I expected they would fluing off on one, which is all well and good for you in theory, but it actually leads to the same situation persisting and deteriorating.
If we don’t implement a radical solution our grandchildren will curse us for the terrible mess we leave them.
PKB, we don’t deport them: they deport themselves! When the work that they came here for is no longer available, and benefits are withdrawn, the illegals go home. It’s that simple.
On the other hand, if an amnesty is implemented, then the next wave comes in for the next amnesty.
As for the Home Office and its sub-contractors, the HO is supposed to AUDIT its subbies just as my client compnaies do.
Allen@Oslo is 100% right. In the States they gave an amnesty for illegals during the mid-1980s. At the time the politicians said that the amnesty (for around 2 million people) would solve the illegal immigrant problem. Fast forward to today where there are between 15 and 20 MILLION illegals waiting for a new amnesty. Amnestys only encourage more illegals !
By contrast, in Arizona , where they have been cracking down on illegals and those who employ them, the numbers have fallen dramatically because the illegals have fled the state in droves.Enforcement works – Britain should try it.
Mass immigration is the sole, irreversible legacy of ZanuLabour. Everything else they’ve done to us can be changed, except the mass of foreigners living here now.
No government will attempt real action to remove them.
All demographic projections on which future economic planning for this country is based, are based on a rising population due mainly to immigration.
This latest story about putting up employers’ names on some website is just that – a story.
A story to make us believe they’re going to do something about the influx.
Complete rubbish, of course. And of course, complete rubbish spouted faithfully by al-Beeb.
Real action to halt immigration would not be quoted so approvingly; quite the reverse, in fact.
This is interesting, and the BBC and Home Office are mentioned. Watch as much as you can.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3664960863576873594&q=common+purpose&ei=Rn9aSL_jJqi8igKzi4D4Dg
Oh God – I’ve just been watching ‘Flog it’, a harmless little programme about selling antiques and knick-knacks at auction.
And planted in the middle of it was a five minute propaganda piece about the ‘benefits’ of multi-culturalism, dressed up as a potted history of Tiger Bay, Cardiff.
You can’t watch anything, even a light-hearted show about antiques auctions, on al-Beeb without being bombarded with the ideology of the ruling political class.
There’s an elephant in the room chaps but as no one knows where he’s hid it’s a bit difficult to get rid of him.
1. Illegals will not leave if we cut off benefits because they live on the black market not benefits. Get that out of your minds for good. Illegal immigrants do not legally claim benefits. Legals ones may but that’s another story.
2. So if the economy crashes the black market will what? Flourish or disappear? Erm …
3. One of my companies was fined a few years ago for illegal tipping. The driver who dumped the crap in a lay-by knew he was supposed to take it to the tip but would rather have had, I suspect, a nap and not drive as far. It was not company policy to fly-tip I can vouch for that. What was I supposed to do follow him, sit in the cab? How do you run a company if you can’t trust your workers? How do the workers react when they know they aren’t trusted?
Now not only do employees break the rules (and you can’t always dump them on the first offence) but it is bloody difficult to tell who is here legally and who isn’t.
Can you spot false papers because I don’t think I can?
Now one could think well I’ll play safe and not hire anyone remotely foreign. Nope, even bigger fine from the race relations mafia.
OK, I’ll ring up immigration and see if they know if this promicing looking young chap with a dusky hue and an odd accent is ‘legal’ enough to clean the executive bog. Several months later …
OK No cheap labour then. See you down the dole queue?
No, PKB is right it’s gone too far to be funny.
“I also wondered how all these illegal immigrants got into the country in the first place – will the UK Border Agency website be providing us with analysis of that?”
Well, on a related note here’s one method of how they got work despite being illegals – I wonder if any of the named and shamed employers were on the wrong end of this?
(Apologies for the blog plug.)
David Vance
This problem gos much further and has far larger criminal implications then you indicate.
Its not Just the NHS or The Home office.
I think if you investigate you will find that, the amount of illegal immigrants and students [ on 20 hour employment visa’s working 40-80 hours] employed paying full and proper PAYE, working INDIRECTLY for the government is countless more then directly.
Hundreds of billions are given by our government every year, to a variety of privately owned national and multi-national companies working entirely or largely under government contract.
I could get boring and explain how this sort of scram operates in the interests of all but the ordinary people that actually have to live in this society. I will not because I think most here are smart enough to work it out for themselves.
Look at the regional PDFs of those named and shamed – a handful of chip shops and curry parlours with one two or three “illegals” Its so pathetic it shrieks of “quick, for gods sake, round up a couple of foregners so we can pretend we are “cracking down”.
Only one firm of lawyers (how about four hundred – that would be a good start)and so called four language schools. Near me in SarfLondun there is an “ecclesiastical college” whose window proclaims “help and advice about obtaining student visas is available”. Our backdoor wide open, systemic disease. Enrol to study errr Chritianity (no questions asked). Instead we get a chip shop in Tunbridge Wells.
Naming and shaming says the headline, tokenism and media management is the substance.
I’ve been listening to these stories about employing illegal labour for a while now and wondering.
I am an employer.I would not dream of employing an illegal though I would have no problem with an immigrant who was fully legal.Other employers I know feel the same.
If you click on the link showing which companies have been caught employing illegals, an interesting picture emerges which confirms what I and others have long suspected.
The clue is the rider, “no companies were prosecuted in Scotland or Northern Ireland”
Scotland and Northern Ireland enjoyed less immigration than practically anywhere else in Western Europe over the 20 years or so before the East European influx began to change things.
A good subject for a Panorama enquiry I’d have thought.
Dave Fordwych,
I am an employer also, with similar views to your own. Here in Norther Ireland there has been a MASSIVE surge in immigration, legal and otherwise and many within the public and private sector have no qualms in getting cheap labour, regardless. I reckon there COULD be many prosecutions here, but there won’t be any.
We don’t find the the BBC criticising the European Convention on Human Rights, which prevents the deportation from the UK of, e.g., Islamic Jihadists. Of course, if there were to be a return to real British justice, then the UK would have to opt out of that Convention.
“Fury at Abu Qatada hold up”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1317083.ece