No one is entitled to claim to be British and entitled to work here(in the UK) unless they prove it every time.
"The UK Border Agency confirmed the figures and said: 'Illegal working puts huge pressures on the public purse at a time when the country can least afford it. It is the legal responsibility of all employers to check that employees have the right to work in the UK.'
So employers are now damned if they let in illegal workers, and damned if they appear racially biased. Hence the Government's brilliant idea of changing the goalposts.
The default position now is that no one is entitled to claim to be British and entitled to work here unless they prove it. The Border Agency says firms must demand new identity checks every 12 months."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351417/Im-British-born-bred-So-I-proving-it.html#ixzz1dBkIixHn
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Cost to the taxpayer and an illegal employer
'As for bosses, Mr Panton said that if they fail to conduct the necessary checks and knowingly employ someone who doesn't have the legal right to work in the UK, they can be fined up to £10,000 and be jailed for up to two years.'- [[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351417/Im-British-born-bred-So-I-proving-it.html#ixzz1dBowTXbf]]
This is why it is necessary for bosses to keep checks on people of their employ. They cannot afford to take the risk of going to jail or paying ten thousand pounds.
The cost of illegal workers to the taxpayer is immense and the only way to control these massive costs to insure over and over that those who claim to be British really are.
" Migration Watch UK has estimated that there are around 32,000 bogus students coming to the UK every year, at a cost to the taxpayer of between £326 million and £493 million. (Briefing Paper 2.10). The weaknesses of the student visa system are described in Briefing Paper 2.3."-[[http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem]]
Firstly not everyone with the legal right to work in Britain is British. There are millions of people on work visas. Secondly carrying your passport around 24/7 is a security risk in terms of identity theft and so forth. No one should the right to demand your passport and keep it. Given this situation you might need the passport for other things. Either every institution should carry a passport/I.D-document?Work-permit checker similar to those used in supermarkets to charge you or this buffoonery must be put to a stop. [[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351417/Im-British-born-bred-So-I-proving-it.html]]
The no-discrimination policy is a good thing
Anyone can pose as anything nowadays. How hard is it to fake an infectious British accent especially if you've been working/living in the country illegally for God knows how long. Add to that being a white Eastern European illegal and there's no telling who is what.
Many legal Britons do not have proper English accents. And who wants it? Race/sound doesn't determine citizenship rights, citizenship does. Many legal Britons are non-White. Many legal workers are not British.
"You should ask all prospective employees to present their documents before they begin working for you. You should not make presumptions about a person's right to work in the UK on the basis of their background, appearance or accent.'
Further guidance, published a month later, is even blunter: 'You should not assume that someone from an ethnic minority is an immigrant, or that someone born abroad is not entitled to work in the UK." [[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351417/Im-British-born-bred-So-I-proving-it.html#ixzz1dBtlnKKx]]
"Equally, you should not employ anyone on the basis of their claim to be British, or if you think they appear to be British. If you do discriminate against someone on racial grounds and do not follow the code of practice, this may be used as evidence against you under race relations legislation before an employment tribunal.
'If you operate discriminatory recruitment processes, you could face prosecution under race relations legislation and an unlimited fine if found guilty."- [[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351417/Im-British-born-bred-So-I-proving-it.html#ixzz1dBuAETCU]] The truth of the matter is that terrorists (at least those photographed in the news) tend not to be white and employers are punished by law for checking on non-white workers(unlimited fine + jail) and therefore check on white workers(to stave off a 10,000 pound fine + jail)
Conclusively, those likely to be a danger to the country are treated with leniency while those who are flustered at the prospect of doing pointless things over and over are badgered to a maddening degree.
Illegal workers not uncommon, many legal immigrants list English as a second language and the problem of population explosion
Yes, but why should people who are British and legal have to deal with checks and rechecks. Is British now so paranoid that a journalist like Eileen Fairweather needs to be repeatedly crosschecked?
" Meanwhile, there are more than 300 primary schools in which over 70% have English as a second language; this is nearly a half million children. In primary and secondary schools, nearly one million children have English as a second language."
"13. There are three main sources of illegal immigration:
Those who clandestinely cross the borders e.g. on the back of a lorry.
People who stay on in the UK after their legal leave to remain has expired. These can be visitors, students or those on work visas. In the autumn of 2009 the press reported extensive exploitation of the student visa system, notably on the Indian sub-continent and, in February 2010, the government temporarily suspended applications from posts in China, India, Bangladesh and Nepal. Migration Watch UK has estimated that there are around 32,000 bogus students coming to the UK every year, at a cost to the taxpayer of between £326 million and £493 million. (Briefing Paper 2.10). The weaknesses of the student visa system are described in [[Briefing Paper 2.3.
Failed Asylum Seekers]]
Those whose claim of asylum has been rejected but who the authorities have failed to remove.
14. In June 2005, a government commissioned study gave a central estimate of the number of illegal immigrants of 430,000. Migration Watch updated this to 475,000. (Briefing Paper 11.6). In March 2009, a study by the London School of Economics suggested a central estimate of 618,000 of which 442,000 were thought to be in London. Migration Watch UK updated the UK estimate to 1.1 million. (Briefing Paper 11.22). The government continue to be opposed to an amnesty - for good reasons. (Briefing Paper 11.7).
Policy of Previous Government
15. The massive increase in immigration since 1997 was not the result of "globalisation". It was the result of deliberate acts and omissions by the previous government. (Briefing Paper 9.22). Documents recently released by the Coalition government demonstrate that the Labour government decided not to publish research which they had commissioned which showed some negative effects of immigration. See [[http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/corporate/legacyresearchimmigration]]
16. The Labour government claimed, correctly, to be introducing the most far-reaching reforms to the immigration system for more than a generation. Unfortunately, they are neither "tough" nor "Australian style". The Australian immigration system starts with a limit and selects within it. The British system has no limits and is not intended to have any. (Briefing Paper 3.3). Migration Watch UK have made proposals for toughening this points based system. (Briefing Paper 3.5)."-[[http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem]]
Discrimination against the English
"'The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 requires that employers take steps to ensure the people they employ have right to work in UK,' said Demetrious Panton, an employment discrimination adviser.
'Home Office guidance on the avoidance of unlawful discrimination advises employers not to restrict checks on illegal working to particular ethnic or racial groups. If they did so they could fall foul of discrimination law and unlimited exposure to compensation claims. In short, you as an Englishwoman have to show you are entitled to work in your own country.'
Millions of self-employed Britons could be particularly badly affected. Some can invoice hundreds of different employers each year. Will they be expected to submit their passports every time?"-[[ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351417/Im-British-born-bred-So-I-proving-it.html#ixzz1dBvvDDnf%5D%5D
"...But this daftness is precisely why elderly white women are now subjected to embarrassing searches at airports so that no ethnic minority person will feel they are being discriminated against in our hunt for terrorists."
Succinctly put, it's nonsensical and not fair. White people don't blow themselves up.
Okay, because there are no elderly women in ethnic minorities? Or does Interpol not list white women terrorists just to be polite? No one is badly effected. These checks are for your own good. It's all part of the fairness and efficiency that is what David Cameroon claims to be 'British-ness' (note not British-hood) [[http://www.juancole.com/2011/07/white-terrorism-in-norway.html]]
[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/the-worlds-most-wanted-list]]- "In Britain, rather more prosaically, Crimestoppers UK's 10 Most Wanted includes one John Levy, wanted for "driving off from a petrol station without paying for £51 worth of diesel"
Checks/queues keep people in line. They are reminders that no one is above the law, that security is being administered and justice is being served.
No legal will be badly effected, the only cost here is time. And time is always spent.
Identity theft vulnerable passports
"When the Israelis assassinated a Hamas leader in Dubai last year, 12 of the hit squad travelled on fake British passports.
Yet now we are the ones supposed to hand over our passports or birth certificates, often to organisations which store our data in developing countries where we have no control over security. How vulnerable does that make us to terrorism?
But this is Britain's brave new world. By surrendering the control of our borders, we have become the policed instead."[[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351417/Im-British-born-bred-So-I-proving-it.html#ixzz1dBydDwU2]]
The danger in these checks is not only that they waste time for people who are obviously not illegal workers or terrorists but that handing your passport to any employer/authority/institution who demands it, is exposing yourself to the peril of identity theft.
On the contrary, that it is not. Passport checking means that checks are being made to insure that you are not carrying a fake passport or someone else's passport and so forth. The same holds true for other ID documents.
What do you think?