Another approach to illegal immigration

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Britain proposes charging residents deposit on foreign family visits

Last Updated: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 | 3:33 PM ET

The Associated Press

Britain may start requiring residents to pay deposits when their non-European Union family members visit, refundable only when the relatives go home, according to a government proposal aimed at tightening borders and eliminating illegal immigration.

The idea was one of several floated Tuesday, starting a three-month period of public debate, as the government touts its tough new immigration policies.

Britain has progressively been tightening the screws on immigrants and asylum seekers for years, closing loopholes and deporting violators amid worries over terrorism and concerns that immigration is placing an unacceptable burden on public services.

Next year, the government plans to introduce a system that favours skilled workers over unskilled migrants and institute compulsory identification cards for foreigners.

Among other ideas put forward by the Border and Immigration Agency were proposals to halve the length of tourist visas from six months to three, and to strip foreign visitors of the right to appeal decisions by the immigration tribunal.

The Home Office, which runs the immigration agency, said it had no specific figure in mind for the proposed visitors' deposits, but media reports put it at $2,000 US per person.

Currently, non-EU relatives of a British citizen or resident can enter the country if they can show they are visiting family. The agency said requiring a resident sponsor to supply a "financial guarantee" could help ensure the relatives return home on time.

The guarantee would not have to be supplied in all cases, Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said in a statement, only "where we think there's a risk."

Immigration activists criticized the plan as unfair to visitors from less-wealthy countries.

"This is very serious," said Habib Rahman, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, explaining that such a measure would hit hardest on poor people with family in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Caribbean.

"If five people come for a wedding, then they have to put £5,000 down," roughly equivalent to $10,000 US. "Only with a fat bank account can people afford that kind of thing."

The immigration agency said that requiring sponsors to put up cash and supply documentation would make the process simpler and more objective, making it possible to eliminate the appeals process for those who are denied entry.

"With improvements in process and introduction of the sponsorship system, there may be a case for looking at whether the right of appeal is necessary," the agency said.

Should the measures ever become law, they would further harden Britain's once-lax immigration system. As elsewhere in Europe, illegal immigration generates an enormous amount of political heat in the country, and Britain's governing Labour Party has been under almost continuous fire over the issue since it came to power in 1997.

A series of immigration-related blunders — including the recent revelation that thousands of illegal workers had been cleared to work in sensitive security positions — have also spurred the government to make a strong show of cracking down on illegal immigration.

© The Canadian Press, 2007

The Canadian Press

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...mmigration.html

[peejay 327]

...and institute compulsory identification cards for foreigners.

That is so lame. Just like in the USA. They gotta have cards, but nobody can ask to see it because it is racial profiling. I can hear it now..."How do you know they are a foreigner?" or "Why should I have to show my ID?" What a joke!

The real truth is that everyone is entitled to privacy, but nobody really is entitled to anonymity.

Edited December 20, 2007 by peejay

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

...and institute compulsory identification cards for foreigners.

That is so lame. Just like in the USA. They gotta have cards, but nobody can ask to see it because it is racial profiling. I can hear it now..."How do you know they are a foreigner?" or "Why should I have to show my ID?" What a joke!

The real truth is that everyone is entitled to privacy, but nobody really is entitled to anonymity.

Great point. Even captured soldiers are required to give name, rank and service number.