People up North still think that labour are in Power

[MarkOnline]

Whereas I am not a fan of people deciding that paying taxes is nothing to do with them and that they can live on recreational parks, there are people who have a travelling life such as Showpeople (people who run fairgrounds) who are quite responsible people, but have a travelling lifestyle.

Hence as with many things there are good people and bad people and that a way of life which involves travelling is not inherently bad.

Even Showmen distance themselves from the "traveller" community.
Its an interesting thread, one day we may get to a point where colour and race are a non issue and when we have reached that milestone maybe we could get along with the poncy soft arsed suvveners who think that anyone living north of Watford is a monkey. Its all about tollerence I think (Welsh not incuded, or the French, cant trust a nation whos women dont shave their armpits)

 

[Paul Norman]

There are a couple of points here.

1. The term Traveller is actually unhelpful, lumping together totally unconnected groups, some of whom have some ethnicity, and some of whom are just linked by lifestyle choices - such as a number of people who live on canal boats.

2. I am always amused that people assume that I pay less tax than I should, just because I am from a certain grouping. I pay a bigger amount of tax, proportional to my income, I suspect, than many of Her Majesties Government. I do agree though, that a group who decide not to pay tax ought to be rounded up. Starting with, of course, those said members of Her Majesty's Government.

3. If we dealt with people based on their being people, not their being in a group, we might make some progress.

4. I was tempted to just let you guys walk up the 'All travellers are evil' route, but decided to speak up probably too soon. It was just about to get fun

5. And onto the illegal immigrants thing. I have, in my life, met none. Not one. I suspect that most of the immigrants that are upsetting the baying hatred mongers are not, in fact, here illegally at all.

 

[paulears]

I meant the ones who bolt cropper their way onto land that belongs to somebody, who then take three skips to clear their rubbish, and use the wood next door as a toilet. Dumping engine oil into the soil and setting fire to a tree with a bonfire on their last day before moving on. Apart from their teenagers causing havoc locally, and a few tussles with the police, they're wonderful people. This is just the latest one in my area - no doubt they're doing it again just over the county border.

 

[MarkOnline]

There are a couple of points here.

1. The term Traveller is actually unhelpful, lumping together totally unconnected groups, some of whom have some ethnicity, and some of whom are just linked by lifestyle choices - such as a number of people who live on canal boats.

5. And onto the illegal immigrants thing. I have, in my life, met none. Not one. I suspect that most of the immigrants that are upsetting the baying hatred mongers are not, in fact, here illegally at all.

Maybe there arent many illegal imigrants on the canal system, they may have had enough of travellin by boat.

 

[Paul Norman]

I meant the ones who bolt cropper their way onto land that belongs to somebody, who then take three skips to clear their rubbish, and use the wood next door as a toilet. Dumping engine oil into the soil and setting fire to a tree with a bonfire on their last day before moving on. Apart from their teenagers causing havoc locally, and a few tussles with the police, they're wonderful people. This is just the latest one in my area - no doubt they're doing it again just over the county border.

That sounds very similar to the immense littering of a typical British family day on the beach.

Apart from the bolt cropping. I have never seen anyone have to use bolt croppers to enter a beach.

I guess my point is that linking the obviously antisocial and criminal activity you describe to an ethnicity, or other grouping, doesn't work. The people on the beach, at Glastonbury, all leave a mess. The white guy chucking his red bull can out of his Beemer window is creating a mess.

All of the above people need to be addressed. None of them, currently, seem to be.

 

[Paul Norman]

Maybe there arent many illegal imigrants on the canal system, they may have had enough of travellin by boat.

Tis likely you are correct! There are very few on most camp sites I spend time on, either. And non, visibly, in the village where I have a base.

 

[John Hemming]

In my experience and I have met a lot of people who have no legal right to be in the UK (aka Illegal Immigrants) most of those people (who are normally quite nice people) are people who came here legitimately on a visa and overstayed.

There are also those that come in on the back of trucks, but they are not the majority.

Sometimes the system just went wrong. I had this with one illegal immigrant who happened to be a consultant at the local hospital. His status was regularised, but when I spoke to the minister about this the minister warned me not to name him as he would be duty bound to get him deported.

 

[japancool]

In my experience and I have met a lot of people who have no legal right to be in the UK (aka Illegal Immigrants) most of those people (who are normally quite nice people) are people who came here legitimately on a visa and overstayed.

In Home Office parlance, a overstayer is not an illegal immigrant though. There are different penalties for those who overstay vs those who enter illegally.

 

[John Hemming]

If we use I

In Home Office parlance, a overstayer is not an illegal immigrant though. There are different penalties for those who overstay vs those who enter illegally.

If we use this definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration

the continued residence without the legal right to live in that country

Overstayers count as illegal immigrants.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

In my experience people get angry about illegal migrants when they encounter illegal migrants who impact on their lives. The media reflect that rather than create it.

How does that explain that all the anti-emigrants in Cornwall are very unlikely to have ever met one or seen one?

 

[Ian J]

2. I am always amused that people assume that I pay less tax than I should, just because I am from a certain grouping.

Beardies?

 

[Ian J]

There are also those that come in on the back of trucks, but they are not the majority.

A friend works for a large manufacturing company in Birmingham and she was interviewed by the police as she had signed off a truck as being empty whereas in fact when it was later inspected at the port it was found to be full of illegal immigrants who were all trying to leave England

 

[gpietersz]

The perception of a large number of white British people is that somneone who is non-white is an immigrant and, probably, illegal.

I am non-white and live in a very white area of the north.

I am far more likely to have people comment on my being a southerner than my colour.

 

[IanSuth]

How does that explain that all the anti-emigrants in Cornwall are very unlikely to have ever met one or seen one?

A lot of them (my sister in law taught in Cambourne for a while and lived in StErth) are just convinced that the reason their life is so bad is because someone else is getting what is rightfully theirs

They look at the TV and Papers and see politicians saying the world is great and they are pumping money into everything and others stating that ToeRag A or mystery foreign person B is managing to claim 50 squillion pounds a week sat on their backside and they over time come to the conclusion that the overwhelming evidence is that the reason they are not seeing any of the promised improvements is because those other people must be skimming it all off, and not that the politicians and press are not telling the whole truth.

The further you are from the centre of things the easier it is to believe you are forgotten/marginalised and disadvantaged.

I once went to see said SinL and we got some fish and chips (some of the best i have ever had mind) , we took them to a local park to eat. Whilst there I read an info plaque, it was the site of an old arsenic works and had been reclaimed with £23m of EU money - but the locals are still convinced they are hard done by especially with the South Crofty mine is sat in the middle of the town shut and festering like a boil (complete with the graffiti "when all the Tin and fish are gone what is a cornishman to do ?")

 

[AllUpHere]

As others have said, we get into problems whenever we try to generalise, rather than treating people as individuals. I don't think there's any way round it though really, with so many people wanting to pigeonhole others to make themselves feel superior.

The problem is, when we look to group people together we suffer from a terrible confirmation bias. If I were to claim that all MP's were middle aged, overweight sex pests in crap suits, it wouldn't take a lot of digging around to prove to myself that I'm right. It may not occur to me that the sample size I'm using as 'evidence' is only a tiny proportion of the whole. For every MP trying it on with their secretary (or anything with a pulse) there are probably 10 happily married with no such intent.

People, they are a funny bunch, and not always very logical.

 

[japancool]

Overstayers count as illegal immigrants.

They did not immigrate illegally.

 

[John Hemming]

They did not immigrate illegally.

I have a view that I should aim to use language in the way that other people use language. Hence I use the definition identified in Wikipedia (and elsewhere)

I accept the point that overstayers did not migrate illegally, but they are known as illegal immigrants in that they are immigrants who do not have a lawful right to be in the country. (ie their situation is illegal). That is the normal usage of the description.

 

[IanSuth]

I have a view that I should aim to use language in the way that other people use language. Hence I use the definition identified in Wikipedia (and elsewhere)

I accept the point that overstayers did not migrate illegally, but they are known as illegal immigrants in that they are immigrants who do not have a lawful right to be in the country. (ie their situation is illegal). That is the normal usage of the description.

A very very dangerous generalisation - under it all the Windrush victims would have been classed as illegal immigrants in your book - until they proved the law had been applied wrongly

Equally I have a friend here is his background - at the end you can tell me your thoughts

Born Northern Rhodesia to British parents (no birth certificate as none issued there at the time)

Moved to NZ when v.v. young as independence happened

Lived in NZ until early 20's when joined British Army (REME)

Served in Gulf war 1 & 2 mainly based Berkshire & Paderborn where he met his German wife and had child 2002

Moved to UK about 2006

Left army on medical discharge due to knee issues caused by gulf war inoculations straight before a route march (luckily German civilian hospital had kept notes as UK Army medical corps had conveniently lost them all), wife started work to support them

Went to get a passport (didnt need one before) - as no way to prove when he was born and to whom he was offered Zambian nationality, being in the army he had been out of the uk for >6mths too often to have in the eyes of the home office accumulated enough years here. He was able to stay as married to an EU national and his son has German citizenship

Along came Brexit - they have only been offered pre settled status which led to his son not applying to uni last year (no automatic right to lower tuition fees)

So was he an illegal immigrant from when he joined the British Army until he married his German wife ? (because he did not according to the Home Office have any lawful right to abide here)

How about if I said "A Zambian who arrived in the UK via a roundabout route and lived here for well over a decade before he found a way to make himself legal through marrying an EU national - should his child get a UK tuition fee loan ?"

 

[John Hemming]

A very very dangerous generalisation - under it all the Windrush victims would have been classed as illegal immigrants in your book - until they proved the law had been applied wrongly

"My book" is not an opinion. It is the way things are described.

Three of my children's grandfather arrived on a boat from the West Indies just after the Windrush arrived. Hence he was part of the Windrush generation.

All I am doing is to use the English language in the way it is normally used and defined. I fully recognise how immigration law can be capricious.

For example
https://www.jcwi.org.uk/windrush-scandal-explained

Falsely deemed as ‘illegal immigrants’ / ‘undocumented migrants’ they began to lose their access to housing, healthcare, bank accounts and driving licenses. Many were placed in immigration detention, prevented from travelling abroad and threatened with forcible removal, while others were deported to countries they hadn’t seen since they were children.

I have done quite a bit of migration casework. I have even helped someone with a claim for compensation as part of the Windrush process.

However, we should recognise what the phrase means. There are people that argue for different terminology and that might help at times.

 

[japancool]

All I am doing is to use the English language in the way it is normally used and defined. I fully recognise how immigration law can be capricious.

Just because a phrase is used in a particular way in the popular vernacular, doesn't make it right. It's like how certain sections of the media and society used to use the term "asylum seeker" interchangeably with "illegal immigrant". Or the distinction between "tax evasion" and "tax avoidance".

 

[John Hemming]

Just because a phrase is used in a particular way in the popular vernacular, doesn't make it right. It's like how certain sections of the media and society used to use the term "asylum seeker" interchangeably with "illegal immigrant". Or the distinction between "tax evasion" and "tax avoidance".

I am a bit confused about this. I simply made the point that when people generally refer to "illegal immigrants" or "illegals" this is mainly people who are overstaying on their visa.

It is not just the "popular vernacular", but general usage and definition of the term as you can see from Wikipedia.

As I have also said there are people that think it would be better to use different terminology. My own view is that it is best to know what things mean and arguing with people about their use of words is generally futile.

I am not quite sure what you mean by the distinction between criminal tax evasion and tax avoidance. Anyone with an ISA is doing tax avoidance and there are lots of people with ISAs. There are other ways of avoiding tax such as contributing to a pension that don't strike me as unethical let along criminal.

To me there is an important distinction between tax evasion (which is criminal) and tax avoidance (which is not).

 

[IanSuth]

I am a bit confused about this. I simply made the point that when people generally refer to "illegal immigrants" or "illegals" this is mainly people who are overstaying on their visa.

It is not just the "popular vernacular", but general usage and definition of the term as you can see from Wikipedia.

As I have also said there are people that think it would be better to use different terminology. My own view is that it is best to know what things mean and arguing with people about their use of words is generally futile.

I am not quite sure what you mean by the distinction between criminal tax evasion and tax avoidance. Anyone with an ISA is doing tax avoidance and there are lots of people with ISAs. There are other ways of avoiding tax such as contributing to a pension that don't strike me as unethical let along criminal.

To me there is an important distinction between tax evasion (which is criminal) and tax avoidance (which is not).

I think it says more about the circle of people you are speaking to

In my general everyday life "illegal immigrant" means someone who has arrived in the UK through irregular means and not claimed asylum / refugee status.

I dont like it at all as a phrase really, as like you have proved, it is heavily misused and nearly always about people of colour. Why cant people just say what they actually mean rather than using a term that means different things to different people.

 

[Bob Morgan]

I am a bit confused about this. I simply made the point that when people generally refer to "illegal immigrants" or "illegals" this is mainly people who are overstaying on their visa.

It is not just the "popular vernacular", but general usage and definition of the term as you can see from Wikipedia.

As I have also said there are people that think it would be better to use different terminology. My own view is that it is best to know what things mean and arguing with people about their use of words is generally futile.

I am not quite sure what you mean by the distinction between criminal tax evasion and tax avoidance. Anyone with an ISA is doing tax avoidance and there are lots of people with ISAs. There are other ways of avoiding tax such as contributing to a pension that don't strike me as unethical let along criminal.

To me there is an important distinction between tax evasion (which is criminal) and tax avoidance (which is not).

The Daily Fail has been expounding the fact that Tax Avoidance is a Criminal Act for a long time! It speaks volumes about their readership!

 

[japancool]

To me there is an important distinction between tax evasion (which is criminal) and tax avoidance (which is not).

Precisely. To YOU, there is a distinction. To Joe the plumber, or Mohammad the Uber driver, there isn't. And THAT is why we need to use language correctly.

 

[Ian J]

In my general everyday life "illegal immigrant" means someone who has arrived in the UK through irregular means and not claimed asylum / refugee status.

I dont like it at all as a phrase really, as like you have proved, it is heavily misused and nearly always about people of colour. Why cant people just say what they actually mean rather than using a term that means different things to different people.

An illegal immigrant is someone living in this country illegally fullstop.

Obviously there are more black illegal immigrants over here than white as until last December all of the white immigrants that arrived here from Eastern Europe were here legally thanks to our membership of the EU

 

[IanSuth]

An illegal immigrant is someone living in this country illegally fullstop.

Obviously there are more black illegal immigrants over here than white as until last December all of the white immigrants that arrived here from Eastern Europe were here legally thanks to our membership of the EU

You don't half speak rubbish

So in your opinion my mate was an illegal immigrant for years because he had no documented right to live here (just being in the army meant nobody checked), but because he is white and speaks with a nz accent he is fine - he fell foul of the exact same issue as the windrush scandal victims and it is still happening (google about fijian veterans denied NHS healthcare)

to quote from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43782...dal, which broke,a lack of official paperwork.

Are they here legally?
The Home Office kept no record of those granted leave to remain and issued no paperwork - making it is difficult for Windrush arrivals to prove their legal status.

In 2010, it destroyed landing cards belonging to Windrush migrants.

Because they came from British colonies that were not independent, they believed they were British citizens.

 

[Newchodge]

You don't half speak rubbish

So in your opinion my mate was an illegal immigrant for years because he had no documented right to live here (just being in the army meant nobody checked), but because he is white and speaks with a nz accent he is fine - he fell foul of the exact same issue as the windrush scandal victims and it is still happening (google about fijian veterans denied NHS healthcare)

to quote from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43782241#:~:text=The Windrush scandal, which broke,a lack of official paperwork.

Are they here legally?
The Home Office kept no record of those granted leave to remain and issued no paperwork - making it is difficult for Windrush arrivals to prove their legal status.

In 2010, it destroyed landing cards belonging to Windrush migrants.

Because they came from British colonies that were not independent, they believed they were British citizens.

Your friend was NOT living illegally. He struggled to prove that, but he was not living illegally. People who come here legally and who overstay their visas are living illegally, meaning they can, at any time, be 'dealt with' by the authorities.

 

[japancool]

He struggled to prove that, but he was not living illegally.

As far as the Home Office is concerned, if you can't prove you have the right, you are illegal.

 

[John Hemming]

I think it says more about the circle of people you are speaking to

In my general everyday life "illegal immigrant" means someone who has arrived in the UK through irregular means and not claimed asylum / refugee status.

I dont like it at all as a phrase really, as like you have proved, it is heavily misused and nearly always about people of colour. Why cant people just say what they actually mean rather than using a term that means different things to different people.

I gave a link to Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration

or the continued residence without the legal right to live in that country.

And the jcwi
https://www.jcwi.org.uk/windrush-scandal-explained

Falsely deemed as ‘illegal immigrants’ / ‘undocumented migrants’ they began to lose their access to housing, healthcare, bank accounts and driving licenses.

Both use the same definition. I really don't think you can call the JCWI anti immigrant. I accept that there are arguments about the use of the phrase, but it is a phrase that is widely used and always includes overstayers.

 

[IanSuth]

Your friend was NOT living illegally. He struggled to prove that, but he was not living illegally. People who come here legally and who overstay their visas are living illegally, meaning they can, at any time, be 'dealt with' by the authorities.

But that is what happened to the Windrush scandal people (and the equivalents) they came here legally BUT as they could not prove it the authorites who had decided upon a presumption of guilt in immigration cases treated them as illegal and deported etc accordingly

That is what people dont realise - when the "hostile environment" came into being it basically meant if you are undocumented (to use a better phrase) you are treated as illegal, you cant get a new job, a new housing tenancy, some NHS treatments, a student tuition loan etc etc

This total change means that the old correct at the time language of illegal immigrant just doesn't correctly describe now - and creates issues by it's use.

 

[japancool]

but it is a phrase that is widely used and always includes overstayers.

That's not true at all. Some years ago, the penalties for overstaying were much harsher than for being an illegal immigrant, because an overstayer was deemed to have breached the trust of the UK government in granting them a visa in the first place. The penalties seem to have since been equalised, but there is still a distinction in law, with overstayers having certain ways to regularise their status which do not apply to illegal immigrants.

 

[Newchodge]

But that is what happened to the Windrush scandal people (and the equivalents) they came here legally BUT as they could not prove it the authorites who had decided upon a presumption of guilt in immigration cases treated them as illegal and deported etc accordingly

That is what people dont realise - when the "hostile environment" came into being it basically meant if you are undocumented (to use a better phrase) you are treated as illegal, you cant get a new job, a new housing tenancy, some NHS treatments, a student tuition loan etc etc

This total change means that the old correct at the time language of illegal immigrant just doesn't correctly describe now - and creates issues by it's use.

The fact that the Home Office under Theresa May persecuted British citizens living here legally , depoted many to foreign countries, allowed them to die for want of NHS treatment and so on, does not mean that they were illegal immigrants. It just means that the Home Office was more interested in grandstanding to the masses who had been brainwashed into screaming illegal immigrant at anyone whose appearnace they did not like, than in treating people compassionately and legally.

 

[japancool]

But that is what happened to the Windrush scandal people (and the equivalents) they came here legally BUT as they could not prove it the authorites who had decided upon a presumption of guilt in immigration cases treated them as illegal and deported etc accordingly

That is what people dont realise - when the "hostile environment" came into being it basically meant if you are undocumented (to use a better phrase) you are treated as illegal, you cant get a new job, a new housing tenancy, some NHS treatments, a student tuition loan etc etc

This total change means that the old correct at the time language of illegal immigrant just doesn't correctly describe now - and creates issues by it's use.

It happened to a friend of mine. She was Norwegian, and had a Norwegian passport. After having lived here for five years (as a child), exercising for EFTA treaty rights, she was automatically granted indefinite leave, but was not required to get any paperwork to prove it. She lost her Norwegian citizenship because she hadn't lived in Norway for long enough, and could not prove that she had previously been granted the right to live here, so as far as the Home Office was concerned, she was illegal.

 

[Ian J]

You don't half speak rubbish

Says the pot to the kettle

 

[gpietersz]

She lost her Norwegian citizenship because she hadn't lived in Norway for long enough

So she was stateless? That is appalling.

Did that not let her apply for leave to remain? How did she resolve it?

 

[Newchodge]

So she was stateless? That is appalling.

Did that not let her apply for leave to remain? How did she resolve it?

If she were living in the UK and stateless, she would be eligible for a British passport.

 

[IanSuth]

If she were living in the UK and stateless, she would be eligible for a British passport.

Nope - she "might" be eligible

My mate was offered Zambian nationality, the UK govt does what it can to see if there is anywhere else they think they can get you nationality before they offer uk, without his knowledge they applied to the Zambian consulate on his behalf, then as he had an offer of nationality he was no longer stateless (he has a letter to that effect from the gov) even though he had not set foot in that country since he was a babe in arms and at that point it was just transitioning from being a UK colony

As I tried to explain (badly obviously) due to the "hostile environment" the media had portrayed everyone who is not an obvious UK passport or visa holder as equally obviously an illegal immigrant and people have taken up the war cry

It is not like that, there are all sorts of shades of grey - when there was still a presumption of innocence in many ways it did not matter it was just words, now that to get a house, job, treatment (and soon to vote) you have to prove nationality positively (ie there is a presumption of guilt) it does matter and hence the old way of just saying "illegal immigrant" without thinking is not helpful.

If you as an HR person had him come in and tell his story then without proof he is married to a German national with pre settled status would you take the risk of taking him on ? He has no UK Passport still and refused to complete the paperwork for a Zambian one

 

[japancool]

So she was stateless? That is appalling.

Did that not let her apply for leave to remain? How did she resolve it?

She was a dual citizen of another country. In the end, she moved to Norway to regain her citizenship.

 

[John Hemming]

That's not true at all.

I have linked to Wikipedia and the JCWI to prove that the definition I understand to be the definition used is the one which is widely used.

You disagree.

Do you have any authoritative sources that share your view?

Language in the end is a question of people using words to mean the same things. Hence if you are to contend that overstayers do not count as being illegal immigrants you really will have to justify this with some evidence. In this instance you need to identify authoritative sources which put forward your supported definition.

 

[IanSuth]

Whilst trying to find an actual UK legal definition for "Illegal Immigrant" I found the new 2016 Immigration Act - it has a lot of things in it (but no definition) that i bet most people didnt realise (i didnt) for instance

It is now an offence to drive in the UK if you do not have immigration clearance (another section gives authorised officers the right to enter a premises without a warrant for the purposes of searching for a driving licence if they believe there may be one there)

44Offence of driving when unlawfully in the United Kingdom
(1)The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).

(2)Before section 25 insert—

“24CDriving when unlawfully in the United Kingdom
(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person drives a motor vehicle on a road or other public place at a time when the person is not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom, and

(b)at that time the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the person is not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.

(2)A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction—

(a)in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine or to both;

(b)in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.