Windrush crisis

rjsterry

florerider wrote:

earth wrote:

I find it very difficult to believe that someone could destroy these records then proceed to deport people and think they could get away with it. The idea is so ridiculous that only someone certifiably insane could attempt it. If that is not the case then it could only have been done through absolute incompetence or purposely to create a scandal.

I would not rule out absolute incompetence, or a typical British jobsworth.

Oh, I don't know. It seems it was fairly well known that the policies would lead to these unintended consequences and various ministers looked the other way.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

florerider wrote:

earth wrote:

I find it very difficult to believe that someone could destroy these records then proceed to deport people and think they could get away with it. The idea is so ridiculous that only someone certifiably insane could attempt it. If that is not the case then it could only have been done through absolute incompetence or purposely to create a scandal.

I would not rule out absolute incompetence, or a typical British jobsworth.

Oh, I don't know. It seems it was fairly well known that the policies would lead to these unintended consequences and various ministers looked the other way.

agreed - this was a stated policy that was very popular. What do people think a "hostile environment" looks like?

A bit like austerity everybody agrees in principle but don't like the details

TheBigBean

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

Outsourcing the burden.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

Outsourcing the burden.

No different to PAYE, VAT, withholding taxes etc.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

Outsourcing the burden.

Like the FCA. Very fashionable.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

Outsourcing the burden.

No different to PAYE, VAT, withholding taxes etc.

The difference being that they (and health professionals and landlords) have been given an impossible task as not everyone who has the right to remain will be able to prove it. Which was known when the policy was introduced. This makes all the back tracking and buck-passing pretty disgusting. They've been found out.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

I'm guessing you've not had to administer such checks, then.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

Outsourcing the burden.

Like the FCA. Very fashionable.

I struggle to see how it’s more efficient.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

Outsourcing the burden.

Like the FCA. Very fashionable.

I struggle to see how it’s more efficient.

It's not about efficiency, but passing the costs and liability on to someone other than HMG.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

I'm guessing you've not had to administer such checks, then.

No, but I don't think it would be that hard, and I've known a lot of people work illegally. One acquaintance spent 10 years doing it, she was always amazed at the complete disconnect between HMRC and UKVI. One telling her she could not work and the other accepting her tax.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

Outsourcing the burden.

No different to PAYE, VAT, withholding taxes etc.

The difference being that they (and health professionals and landlords) have been given an impossible task as not everyone who has the right to remain will be able to prove it. Which was known when the policy was introduced. This makes all the back tracking and buck-passing pretty disgusting. They've been found out.

How many people do you think the State would need to hire to do it all 'in-house'?

TheBigBean

The FCA's user friendly way of defining competence. Previously it was an FCA exam. I'd much rather check someone's passport which is at least objective.

Assessing competence

Firms decide which methods to use when assessing employee competence. We define competence as having the skills, knowledge and expertise needed to discharge the responsibilities of an employee’s role.

Competence includes achieving a good standard of ethical behaviour. It is not just a question of having the appropriate qualification and reading the Statements of Principle for Approved Persons (APER) or the Code of Conduct (COCON) (as applicable). Firms need procedures in place with clear criteria for individuals to be assessed as competent, so all parties involved understand when competence has been reached.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

Outsourcing the burden.

No different to PAYE, VAT, withholding taxes etc.

The difference being that they (and health professionals and landlords) have been given an impossible task as not everyone who has the right to remain will be able to prove it. Which was known when the policy was introduced. This makes all the back tracking and buck-passing pretty disgusting. They've been found out.

How many people do you think the State would need to hire to do it all 'in-house'?

I'm unconvinced of the benefits of doing it - in house or outsourced - in the first place. In two years since its implementation has the number of illegal immigrants reduced significantly? Is the policy remotely effective or is it just a show?

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

I'm guessing you've not had to administer such checks, then.

No, but I don't think it would be that hard, and I've known a lot of people work illegally. One acquaintance spent 10 years doing it, she was always amazed at the complete disconnect between HMRC and UKVI. One telling her she could not work and the other accepting her tax.

They just turn up with proof they can work in the UK - so passport with appropriate visa. Really not that onerous

tailwindhome

I for one have 100% faith that this #Windrush crisis won't be replicated for EU citizens in the future and I'm definite similar injustices aren't being visited on those claiming benefits

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

I'm guessing you've not had to administer such checks, then.

No, but I don't think it would be that hard, and I've known a lot of people work illegally. One acquaintance spent 10 years doing it, she was always amazed at the complete disconnect between HMRC and UKVI. One telling her she could not work and the other accepting her tax.

They just turn up with proof they can work in the UK - so passport with appropriate visa. Really not that onerous

No not that onerous in the scheme of things but just one more thing for an SME, and what does it achieve? Has it reduced the number of illegal immigrants or is just an effort to make it look as though something is being done. It's also beside the point. The reason this is a scandal is that this policy was brought in in the knowledge that it would affect a large number of people in spite of their right to remain. They carried on with the policy for years before finally conceding that they have needlessly wrecked people's lives. And only then when foreign prime ministers intervene.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

They just turn up with proof they can work in the UK - so passport with appropriate visa. Really not that onerous

Why would someone who's lived here since before 1973, with a legitimate right to remain have a visa? A Jamaican passport doesn't carry any weight in this context.

It would be a brave person who would bet against a repeat of this scenario with EU citizens wishing to keep their jobs, healthcare and homes after we leave the EU.

tailwindhome

Monstrous

David Lammy@DavidLammy

I am disgusted and appalled by the case I have just received. My constituent arrived from Jamaica in 1964 aged 6. He has shown me his letter from the Home Office telling him that he will be deported despite having a National Insurance card from 1974 & NHS documentation from 1964.

pblakeney

Welcome to the new UK.
#takingcontrol

FishFish

This reinforces the concern that I have that MPs don't know what they are talking about.

You have the right to NHS treatment if it is your intention to stay - that is the criteria - nothing else. It does not require you to prove anything - just the intention to stay. It i not sensible in many regards but it does appeal to logic on other grounds. This rule is relatively new and was preceeded by registration with a GP.

You can get an NI card easily it does not depend on the right to stay or the right to NHS treatment. You can get a temporary NI number at a walk in.

The issue David Lammy is on about is an outrageous situation but in truth the argument about NHS and NI is nothing to do with it.

rjsterry

Not confined to those born in the Caribbean, either.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ret-obrien

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

Not confined to those born in the Caribbean, either.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ret-obrien

I have said elsewhere it is not a subjective decision, it is an objective paper based one, so the likelihood of prejudice is relatively low as an appeal would reveal this to the detriment of the case worker's job, so it affects all nationalities equally.

It is entirely down to the absurd policies which require an onerous amount of paper work which is beyond some people's capabilities - the right to remain should not be one of wealth and intelligence. The blame sits with May/Rudd and no one else.

rick_chasey

When people in the street shout "go home" at people, they're not really concerned with their immigration status, are they?

Bluntly, this system is the consequence of trying to create a bureaucratic articulation of that mentality.

I tend to agree with BB that it's been made by May and/or Rudd, but we need to be ready to accept that plenty of people supported this type of policy when it was introduced and will continue to do so.

Large swathes of Britain are, and have been for a while, hostile to foreigners.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

When people in the street shout "go home" at people, they're not really concerned with their immigration status, are they?

Bluntly, this system is the consequence of trying to create a bureaucratic articulation of that mentality.

I tend to agree with BB that it's been made by May and/or Rudd, but we need to be ready to accept that plenty of people supported this type of policy when it was introduced and will continue to do so.

Large swathes of Britain are, and have been for a while, hostile to foreigners.

I think the "thought process" was:

People are worried about immigration > we should show that we are listening to this concern > we should set an ambitious target to show we are serious > oh f***, we haven't a hope of meeting that target > DO SOMETHING > let's get rid of all the people who can't prove they have a right to be here; that should be an easy win...

rick_chasey

Yeah, and the reason people like me are critical of people who bang on about how awful immigrants are is for precisely this reason.

The bureaucratic articulation of that always ends up looking something like this affair does. Your average punter is ok with being "hostile" to immigrants.

This is, and was, all foreseeable.

If you keep blaming foreigners for all the bad sh!t, eventually people and the state will turn on them.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah, and the reason people like me are critical of people who bang on about how awful immigrants are is for precisely this reason.

The bureaucratic articulation of that always ends up looking something like this affair does. Your average punter is ok with being "hostile" to immigrants.

This is, and was, all foreseeable.

If you keep blaming foreigners for all the bad sh!t, eventually people and the state will turn on them.

Doesn't need to be foreigners; just "someone else" (people who receive benefits for example). Trouble is sooner or later we'll all find ourselves in that category for one reason or another.

rick_chasey

Aye.

Honestly though, it's all there if you want to hear it. And it has been for decades.

I really want people to realise this is more than just a specific issue to do with May and Rudd and the specifics around documentation.

It is a reflection of where the UK really is, and has been. If it wasn't this, it was going to to be something else.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aye.

Honestly though, it's all there if you want to hear it. And it has been for decades.

I really want people to realise this is more than just a specific issue to do with May and Rudd and the specifics around documentation.

It is a reflection of where the UK really is, and has been. If it wasn't this, it was going to to be something else.

You've studied history; this is way older than that and not unique to Britain. It ebbs and flows but wherever the ride is bumpy, someone will exploit the situation by pointing at some other group and blaming them for whatever misfortune it is.

rjsterry

Wow. Apparently, we're wrong Rick. It's all the fault of Home Office socialism, according to Jacob Rees-Mogg.