Illegal immigration is not a victim-less crime – legitimate visa applicants pay the price
Anyone who thinks that illegal immigration is a victim-less crime needs to think again.
The following post appeared on the Comment is Free thread that followed the article “Go home campaign against illegal immigrants could go nationwide”. Much of it is similar to my own experience of assisting overseas students who wish to study in western schools colleges and universities, and from time to time assisting their parents who wish to visit them in those countries. As such I am re-posting it here, along with some additional comments based on my own experience.
“Among the abuse and outrage on CiF about the week long van campaign, comparisons with Nazi Germany were rife.
“Those who are protesting here and imagining the combined forces of reincarnated Brown Shirts, Black Shirts and the SS marching, along with their instruments of genocide, down the High Streets of the six London Boroughs, need to consider the beams of discrimination that blind their own eyes.”
A selection of posts from the thread:
” Fascist propaganda and scapegoating on a national scale.”
” Been done before by the Bullingdon clubs friends in the Nazi party! ”
” Echos of the Nazis. Slave Labour, Propaganda, demonization of the sick, mentally ill and invalids, ”
” I suppose if they don’t ‘go home’ the next thing will be vans with smoke coming out of the back as though go round gassing suspects – as in Nazi Germany.”
A poster – SonsOfOwainGlyndwr excelled himself with:
“Well at least one positive will come of all this, unemployment may well decrease by a few thousand in the construction industry as concentration camps and attendant gas chambers and ovens are built to irradiate once and for all the ‘illegal immigrant problem in this nation.
“I think they have a word for it, namely, the Final Solution.”
The same SonsOfOwainGlyndwr in a piece of reckless bravado called the government minister concerned Mark Harper, a jackbooted Nazi. The post has since been deleted by the paper’s moderators. The others remain.
The disgraceful montage equating the vans campaign with the systematic persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany was surprisingly also posted by andylucia on that hotbed of armchair Marxism, The Untrusted site. I say ‘surprisingly as
had herself posted on a different Guardian thread that a change of wording, from the government’s ”In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest” – to – “Here in the UK illegally? Avoid being arrested and forcibly removed by contacting us now.”, would make the campaign acceptable. Of course as a barrister she needs to be extra careful in being seen to support illegal activity of any kind.
The post continued:
“There are two groups of people here and unless you are going to advocate a completely open border with no restrictions on entry and exit to the UK, you must by definition discriminate against one. (I shall discount for the moment that tiny number of people who would discriminate against both groups and allow no non-UK citizen into the country.)
“So who constitute these two groups?
“In the one are those people who do not have the right to be in the UK but are here. They comprise those who have entered the country illegally and those who entered legally but who have overstayed their visa and in doing so became illegal. For convenience the government defines this group as illegal immigrants.
“Then there is that group comprising those who are visiting the UK or who wish to visit for a variety of reasons, to study, to take up employment, as tourists, to visit family, to join spouses, etc. and intend to abide by the rules. They are defined as legal immigrants or visitors.
Every time an individual decides to change their status from being law abiding to being criminal they contribute to a tightening of the regulations that govern the application for and the issuing of visas to visit the UK. Let me give two examples. (It’s the same for other countries).
“Not long ago a passport was considered to be sufficient proof of identity. However the advance of technology and the deviousness of highly organised criminal gangs made forgery much easier and its detection much more difficult, sometimes impossible. So at considerable expense to UK tax payers and consequently visa applicants, a system of biometric identification was introduced and instead of visa applicants being able to submit their applications by post, they were required to travel, sometimes thousands of miles to have their eye scanned and their finger prints taken and recorded. Criminal gangs have yet to find ways to forge biometrics, but undoubtedly they are working on it.”
Someone living in the west of Tibet who needs a visa to travel to the UK will have a round trip of almost 5000 km to submit their application at their nearest Visa Application Centre. Someone from the west of Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region will face a similar journey.
The post continued:
“The same technology that enabled the forging of passports has also been used to forge all of the other documents an intended visitor to the UK needs to supply with their application. One of these is the International English Language Testing System certificate to show that the applicant has reached a required level of spoken and written English, listening and reading. Border Officers at ports of entry have recently interviewed visitors with certificates that have been fraudulently obtained and educational institutions and employers have discovered the level of English of students / employees is far below that indicated on the certificate. As a consequence some visa applicants are now having to be interviewed in English via computer conferencing with a visa officer in the embassy’s visa centre. So Visa Application Centres (there are 12 in India, and 12 in China,) have had to install conferencing studios and the interviews have to be recorded and stored as possible evidence.
“Incidentally, each and every time illegal activity requires additional measures to be put in place, the cost for applicants increases. And of course because visa fees are almost always reciprocal, it means the fees UK citizens need to pay to travel also increase.
“So unless you are in favour of the UK having completely open borders, and it would be useful if the Guardian would commission someone to write an article about this, by definition you have to discriminate against one group, either those who are law abiding and wish to travel and live in the UK legally, or the other group – those who are criminals and are in the UK illegally.
So please don’t assume that those who favour disciminating against the latter, the criminals, are racists and those who favour the criminals and discriminate against the law abiding, are not.”