ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
What compassionate circumstances? She's an illegal, she's an overstayer and she has broken the law.amserve wrote:thanks for replies. I can't believe the home office would refuse an elderly lady, divorced, and without a relative in the home country? Surely the fact that shes been here several years, has strong family ties here and the compassionate circumstances almost guarantee her ilr? please advise further
All they do is simply copying the Australian immigration system, Mr Rusty. The UK Government learned this hard way over the years. The abuse will always be there if the system is slack. It is natural.Mr Rusty wrote: but it's this sort of abuse which has now resulted in proposals for sponsors to pay bonds of (allegedly) £1000 for family visas.
Is it really? Deportation as far as i'm aware usually takes where the immigrant had committed a grievous offence. In her case, if she's caught, she'll be removed for overstaying and probably at public expense which would only carry 5 year ban and she might have to repay the expense when the ban is lifted.Jeff Albright wrote:Correct.paulp wrote: It's 10 years if she's caught and deported, because of her long period of overstay.
The UK cannot afford it, Twin. Not in terms of money - in terms of reputation and their international standing as a destination for immigrants.Twin wrote:The way I see it, the government better be prepared to spend a lot of money or grant amnesty to overstayers presently in the country.
It is possible to trace many illegal immigrants without a huge expense. Not sure if it is possible to prosecute and remove them all. The UK has been increasingly following the Australian model. If they continue doing so, they will be able to put things "right" quite soon.The only way to exercise this rule effectively is by removing every caught illegal immigrant which of course would be very expensive or granting them an amnesty but use the new changes to deter prospective immigrants who see the UK as a soft touch for breaking the rules.
No they can lift the ban, however, it is always possible for ECOs to argue that they would not be satisfied that the applicant would adhere to the conditions of their visa, because they have already breached them once.However, I doubt that even after serving the ban, the UK will be willing to lift it.
What? You mean the UK cannot afford the expenses of removing all illegal immigrants or cannot afford granting an amnesty? I see...They looking to frustrate the illegals to leave on their own accord? Well...say in 20 years time. The illegals would have finally vacated the country all together.The UK cannot afford it, Twin. Not in terms of money - in terms of reputation and their international standing as a destination for immigrants
So, what did the Australians do to make this a success? How did they rid the country of illegals?It is possible to trace many illegal immigrants without a huge expense. Not sure if it is possible to prosecute and remove them all. The UK has been increasingly following the Australian model. If they continue doing so, they will be able to put things "right" quite soon.
If the ECO refuses on that basis, that means he would have to place a second ban. That would be unlawful as no where in the rules does it say that the decision maker has this authority. He sure would have to find another ground to refuse.No they can lift the ban, however, it is always possible for ECOs to argue that they would not be satisfied that the applicant would adhere to the conditions of their visa, because they have already breached them once.
If it takes 20 years to bring down the number of illegals then so be it. That is no reason for a defeatist "run up the white flag" attitude that would instead grant illegals access to welfare and the right to bring their family members to the United Kingdom.Twin wrote: What? You mean the UK cannot afford the expenses of removing all illegal immigrants or cannot afford granting an amnesty? I see...They looking to frustrate the illegals to leave on their own accord? Well...say in 20 years time. The illegals would have finally vacated the country all together.
Eventually, the UK will still have to grant some form of amnesty whether they like it or not except of course they have a lot of money to waste on appeals.
My point exactly! Yes, a number of overstayers/illegals will eventually be frustrated out but that number will be nothing compared to those who will go underground. Some are prepared to die over here in poverty than to return to their home country to die in ABJECT poverty. Now, what would they do about those ones? Grant them some form of leave of course.Left to their own resources, many will go home. Others may be regularised on a case by case basis.
Are you sure that only those who have committed an offence, let alone a grievous offence, are deported? Haven't you heard of illegal immigrants being rounded up and send to the detention centres, pending deportation?Twin wrote:Is it really? Deportation as far as i'm aware usually takes where the immigrant had committed a grievous offence. In her case, if she's caught, she'll be removed for overstaying and probably at public expense which would only carry 5 year ban and she might have to repay the expense when the ban is lifted.
Removal is the word, not deportation.
Why does it need to be expensive? The first step was supposed to be the introduction of ID cards. Once that's done, they can use the french system (and many other countries) of requiring everybody to carry their ID cards at all times. It's then a simple matter of police asking for ID and the "without papers" are shipped off to the detention centres.Twin wrote:The way I see it, the government better be prepared to spend a lot of money or grant amnesty to overstayers presently in the country.
The only way to exercise this rule effectively is by removing every caught illegal immigrant which of course would be very expensive or granting them an amnesty but use the new changes to deter prospective immigrants who see the UK as a soft touch for breaking the rules.
I've heard of illegal immigrants being rounded up and removed (maybe deportation on a case by case basis).paulp wrote:Are you sure that only those who have committed an offence, let alone a grievous offence, are deported? Haven't you heard of illegal immigrants being rounded up and send to the detention centres, pending deportation?Twin wrote:Is it really? Deportation as far as i'm aware usually takes where the immigrant had committed a grievous offence. In her case, if she's caught, she'll be removed for overstaying and probably at public expense which would only carry 5 year ban and she might have to repay the expense when the ban is lifted.
Removal is the word, not deportation.
It would be expensive because a lot of the caught immigrants will be removed at public expense. Not only at removal but whilst they are in detention, they will be clothed and fed...i'm sure you're aware of that. Where does that money come from? From people like you (tax payers).paulp wrote:Why does it need to be expensive? The first step was supposed to be the introduction of ID cards. Once that's done, they can use the french system (and many other countries) of requiring everybody to carry their ID cards at all times. It's then a simple matter of police asking for ID and the "without papers" are shipped off to the detention centres.Twin wrote:The way I see it, the government better be prepared to spend a lot of money or grant amnesty to overstayers presently in the country.
The only way to exercise this rule effectively is by removing every caught illegal immigrant which of course would be very expensive or granting them an amnesty but use the new changes to deter prospective immigrants who see the UK as a soft touch for breaking the rules.
