British National Party UK Immigration News Bulletin w/c February 12, 2007
Subscribe to this and other BNP News Bulletins here http://www.bnp.org.uk/mailing_list.htm
No sign up required, just give your email address, and that's it.

1. 15,000 INDIAN DOCTORS TO RETURN HOME

Superficially, this fact is a rare occasion to congratulate the fanatically immigrationist Blair government.
But unfortunately, throwing out Indian doctors, only to let in European ones instead, is not much of a trade-off.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/15000_Indian_docs_in_UK_to_return_home/articleshow/1586875.cms

Thousands of doctors from the Indian sub-continent have lost their seven-month-old legal challenge to the British government to force it to treat non-European Union medics in the UK 'on a par and equally' with Europeans. The net result is that at least 15,000 Indian doctors currently training in the UK may be forced to leave the country with their career paths thrown into confusion. The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO), which was the lead appellant in the case, told TOI just minutes after a verdict they described as 'disappointing' that they were considering a legal appeal.

The lost legal challenge had been launched last June, nearly three months after Britain suddenly - and without consultation or warning - decreed that work permit-free visas would no longer be issued to non-European Union doctors, as had always been the case in the past. On Friday, in a keenly-awaited decision handed down in the High Court in London, the Indian doctors were told by Judge Stanley Burton that he agreed with only one-third of their arguments against the department of health and home office. Judge Burton said he agreed the British government had been lax in failing to conduct a race impact assessment of the new visa requirements for non-European doctors. A race impact assessment is required by Britain's stringent race relations laws. In a dark sidebar to the High Court judgment, BAPIO said it was lamenting the suicide just days ago of the second appellant in the case against the government.

BAPIO vice-chair Satheesh Mathew said Lahore-born-and-bred Dr Imran Yousaf, who 'had been in this country for about two years. (found that) the new visa regulations introduced in April 2006 made it much more difficult for him to obtain a job in this country and he remained unemployed. He felt his career was destroyed.' Mathew said Khan felt 'the last straw was when he recently got a letter from the home office refusing him further leave to remain. All this was too much for him and precipitated him to take his own life.' He added, 'This to me is only the tip of the iceberg of distress and damage that these new regulations have done to the vast number of international medical graduates (IMGs) in this country.' IMG is the technical term used to describe doctors who receive the bulk of their primary and secondary training outside the European Union. In a sign of the anticipated knock-on effect of Friday's judgement, the ruling was described as 'devastating' by at least 30,000 other Indians who lodged a legal case on February 6 to challenge the British government for allegedly disenfranchising non-European economic migrants invited into the UK under the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme (HSMP).

In Friday's ruling, Judge Burton crucially ruled that contrary to the Indian doctors' assertion, the British government was not required to consult with the affected parties before changing rules governing immigration, visas and work permits. Amit Kapadia, coordinator of the 800-member HSMP Forum campaign group said the judgment was very disappointing because 'if the British government is not required to consult with stakeholders before changing immigration rules, then what is the point of going to court?' But BAPIO's head, Dr Ramesh Mehta, insisted the Indian doctors were keen to lodge a legal appeal as soon as possible to challenge Britain's treatment of them as 'second-class doctors'. But Mehta admitted BAPIO was strapped for cash after the lost legal challenge, which cost £ 56,000, including the services of a top-flight lawyer and Cherie Blair-ally Rabinder Singh. Mehta and Mathew said it was important for BAPIO to raise funds from Indians everywhere in order to 'fight for justice'. Sources close to the Indian doctors told this paper the judgement appeared to suggest 'collusion' between the judiciary and executive.

2. BUSINESSES PREFER TO EMPLOY FOREIGNERS

Any business would obviously employ people who are desperate for work, terrified of being sacked and forced to move back to poverty abroad, and easy to bully into subservience. Are foreigners sometimes better qualified? Yes, but it's hardly a positive sign for Polish physics PhD's to be manning cash registers in electronics shops! (And not good for Poland either.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,,2008761,00.html

Migrant workers are seen by small businesses as having greater skills and experience and a better work ethic than their British counterparts, according to a survey published today. A poll of small and medium-sized businesses conducted by the British Chambers of Commerce found that more than three quarters of employers believe migration is beneficial to the economy and want the government to help them take on more foreign workers. Almost half said they had turned to migrant labour because they could not find British employees with the right experience and skills, while another 40% said they took on workers from overseas because they believed they were more productive and worked harder.

BCC director general David Frost called on the government to move urgently to tackle UK skills shortages or risk 'significant social problems'. The findings deal another blow to the reputation of the UK's homegrown workforce and highlight employers' belief that domestic education and training does not produce the workers the economy needs. Mr Frost said: 'Migrant workers have helped to fuel the UK economy but it is troubling that so many employers do not want to employ British workers.' 'The UK's chronic skills shortages must be addressed by the government and reform of the school curriculum is needed to ensure young people enter the workforce with the necessary skills and the right attitude to get on at work.' While the UK economy partly owed workers from the EU accession countries for its growth since 2004, he said it was 'unsustainable to import our way out of the failings of the UK education system'.

Migration could only be a short term solution and failure to address endemic skills shortages could 'store up significant social problems', he warned. Asked their reasons for employing migrant workers, companies surveyed put skills and attitude far higher than wage costs, cited by just 6%. Impressed by overseas workers' skills, they want the government to smooth the path for more to be employed. Almost 70% believe there is too little support and guidance to businesses seeking to take on employees from abroad. One managing director, Phil Inness of Axis Electronics which employs 20% Polish workers, told the BCC: 'In three years of employing from eastern Europe, we haven't had one negative experience. The only concern I have is that at some point they might want to go home.' Dan Ghinn of Frog Creation, a Kent-based multimedia design company, reported: 'I have found it close to impossible to recruit UK-educated people over the last couple of years.

'In 2006 I employed a number of people on contracts and at one stage we had a team made up of people who were all educated at schools in Poland, Nigeria, South Africa, and Australia, and an absolute minority of our team educated in the UK... 'I'm now recruiting again and have found consistently poor levels of educational qualifications (even at GCSE level) among local candidates applying.' His experience was 'great for diversity and provides me with a fantastic, multicultural and creative team', but did not help local school leavers, he said. 'The challenge is we are all in a global marketplace now, and our school leavers are competing with global candidates. 'One way or another we must start to produce young people who are not only qualified but equipped for life in the marketplace.'

Email: business.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

3. PRIEST IN FALSE MARRIAGE SCAM ESCAPES JAIL

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=FD633802X&news_
headline=priest_in_false_marriage_scam_escapes_jail

An evangelical pastor who performed at least 15 sham marriages for immigrants desperate to remain in the UK escaped jail today. Adeola Magbagebeola, 60, was at the centre of a 'sophisticated criminal conspiracy' involving fake marriages at the Celestial Church of Christ in north London. The Nigerian-born minister charged £1,000 a time to perform services chiefly to immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, while his right hand man Paul Singh provided fake documents to be submitted to the Home Office. Between April 2001 and August 2004, Magbagebeola married the same woman twice using different names, and even married another woman twice in the same day, wearing the same clothes. Magbagebeola, who needed the assistance of staff to help him enter court, was only given two years' suspended sentence and ordered to pay £20,000 in costs, chiefly because of a debilitating diabetic condition.

Ms Anuja Dhir, prosecuting, said: 'He played a vital role in this long running and sophisticated criminal conspiracy, which was designed to evade the United Kingdom's immigration control. 'He conducted a significant number of sham marriages thereby abusing his position as a minister of the church, and in doing so supported significant applications to the Home Office.' Passing sentence, Recorder Richard Atchley told Snaresbrook Crown Court: 'There are offences that clearly cross the custodial threshold. You have waited since November 2004 until yesterday when you pleaded guilty to this offence. 'The delay is due solely to you and your prevarication. In the circumstances I can give you little credit for your plea of guilty at this very, very, very late stage. 'I am fully satisfied from what I have seen and heard that you voluntarily and for gain carried out these bogus marriages, which you well knew Paul Singh was orchestrating to falsely gain for the participants leave to remain in this country and for other parties to obtain money.

'You are a very parsimonious parson in gross breach of trust to his church, his congregation and the immigration authorities of this country. You have used that position for selfish and personal gain to betray all that he purported to stand for in the eyes of his flock and others. 'You have shown a frankly staggering lack of remorse from a purported Christian in the face of your wrong-doing.' A videotape of meetings between Mahmoud and Magbagebeola played to the court showed the arrangement of a fake marriage in conjunction with Singh, who was jailed for five years in June last year. This evidence was then handed over to police. Ms Dhir added: 'On August 6, 2004, police went to the Celestial Church of Christ. 'When they arrived he was carrying out a bogus marriage.

He and the groom were arrested and the vestry was searched. One of the items found there was the registry of marriages. This revealed the extent of the marriages, the number of them, what I mean by that is the proportion of bogus marriages.' There were a large number of passports found at the church, described as a world-wide church based in Nigeria, and a registered charity. Mr Magbagebeola, who had been head of the church since 1972, said he held the passports for safe keeping, and in some cases this meant for years. Kehinde Akanda, for the defence, described his client as a very ill man with a life-threatening illness, and successfully argued that he should be kept out of prison. He said: 'There is no doubt he has brought shame on himself, his community and his church. That shame will be with him for the rest of his life.' Married Magbagebeola, of Enfield, north London, suffers from kidney problems, heart failure and it has been estimated that he has a 50 per cent chance of living for the next five to eight years. He pleaded guilty to conspiring together with Singh and with others unknown to defraud the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office by arranging bogus marriages for the purpose of supporting false claims for continued residence in the UK. Four other people have been convicted in relation to the crime after pleading guilty

4. REJECTED ASYLUM SEEKERS COST US £400,000 A DAY

http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=1171

Taxpayers are forking out more than £400,000 a day to support failed asylum seeker families who should have been kicked out of the country. Ministers have agreed to support any failed applicant who has children with them while they are still in the UK. And delays in removing people under the shambolic asylum system have left the public with an annual bill of £150million. That works out at around £19,500 a year for each eligible claimant family – an income greater than some working British households.

We also pay almost another £60million a year to support failed asylum seekers whom we cannot send home over fears for their safety. This fresh embarrassment for Home Secretary John Reid comes two days after the Daily Express revealed he has increased the bribes on offer for failed asylum seekers to return home voluntarily. And it comes two weeks after this newspaper’s editor told an inquiry of our determination to tell the truth about the ‘shambles’ of Britain’s asylum system. Critics last night warned it will encourage others to head to Britain and claim refuge. Blair Gibbs, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘Such a large welfare cheque is bound to act as an incentive to encourage more families to try their luck with our asylum rules, knowing they’ll be looked after even if their application fails.’ Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: ‘It is outrageous that the taxpayer is having to foot such a high bill for people who shouldn’t be here. ‘This is a direct consequence of the Government’s failure to remove the 450,000 failed asylum seekers who are in this country.’

The House of Lords was told in a Parliamentary written answer that 7,730 failed asylum seekers are in receipt of support from the National Asylum Support Service because they have dependents with them. Usually a failed asylum seeker has all support stopped within days of their application to stay being refused. But under Section 95 of Labour’s Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Government will offer support to those who have children under 18 with them, even if they have exhausted their appeals and refuse to leave. Separate figures show the public is also funding an additional £58.6million a year to support so-called ‘hard case’ failed asylum seekers. These cannot be returned to their home country because it is not considered safe. Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘The cost of the Government’s failed policy in this area is mounting all the time.’ The Home Office insisted the annual bill for supporting failed asylum seeker families is falling every year and compares to £308million in 2003-4. ‘The Home Office has significantly reduced the cost of asylum support and has saved more than £400million in the past two years,’ it said. But critics say much of that fall may be due to a Government amnesty for failed asylum seekers who have been in the UK for long periods.

5. BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT INTRODUCES BIOMETRIC SCANNING

http://news.cheapflights.co.uk/flights/2007/02/birmingham_airp.html

Birmingham Airport has become the latest UK transport hub to introduce biometric iris-scanning immigration control technology. The Iris Recognition Immigration System (IRIS), which allows registered passengers to enter the UK without queuing to see an immigration officer, is already in operation at Heathrow and Manchester airports (see, Eye scans speed up immigration at Manchester Airport). Announced yesterday by the Home Office, the introduction of IRIS at Birmingham Airport comes as immigration minister Liam Byrne looks to build even stronger borders and remove incentives for illegal immigrants to come to Britain. Enrolment for the scheme takes around five minutes and is free; registration is conducted by immigration staff in the departures area of the airport. Passengers have their iris patterns photographed and this information is stored in a database. Since no two iris patterns are alike, it allows a scanner to quickly identify the individual when they pass through immigration control.

All they need do is look into a camera and if the system recognises them they will be allowed to pass through an automated barrier. This takes away the need to queue up to see an immigration officer in person. Byrne commented: 'The public are increasingly recognising that using biometric information is the future of air travel. More than 61,000 people have registered with IRIS, proving that the people are enjoying the benefits of a secure border that facilitates entry for legitimate travellers.' A Birmingham Airport spokesman said the system would be beneficial for travellers, 'particularly for the business community for whom time is money'.

6. CREEPING AUTHORITARIANISM NO SOLUTION TO IMMIGRATION CRISIS

This party rarely sees eye-to-eye with the 'anti-racist' ('anti-white' is more like it, as they never seem to have a problem with anti-white racism) organisation that published the article below. But we agree on one point: petty authoritarianism, and endless increases in the power of the liberal-fascist ('lib-fash' to those who know it well) state, will NOT solve the immigration crisis. It cannot be repeated enough times that history makes perfectly clear that immigration can be adequately controlled without infringing our traditional rights and liberties, and without a police state, if only the political will is present to control it. And absent that will, all the jackboots on earth won't accomplish anything.

http://no-racism.net/article/1987

The UK Borders Bill, which had its second reading on 5 February 2007, continues the trend of previous legislation, giving immigration officers further powers, decreasing the rights of those subject to immigration control and creating further duties and penalties for them. Its effect is bound to be to reinforce xenophobia and popular racism - unless the draconian nature of some of its provisions leads to a groundswell of anti-racist protest. Under the Bill, anyone subject to immigration control must have a biometric ID card. Any lawful migrant can be forced to live in particular places and report to police or immigration officers as a condition of his/her stay. Immigration officers and police can go into the home of anyone they have arrested and search for nationality documents if they suspect that the person is not British. And foreigners who commit any one of a vast range of 'specified' offences, or who are sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for any offence, are automatically deported, with no appeal rights, no matter how long they have lived in the country, or the value of the contribution they have made to society here, unless their deportation clearly breaches their human rights or they are refugees.

The increased powers for immigration officers include a power for designated officers to arrest anyone at a port and hold them for three hours. It's a criminal offence to abscond from this detention or to obstruct an officer imposing it, punishable by almost a year's imprisonment. Immigration officers can also seize cash alleged to be proceeds of Immigration Act offences (including working in breach of conditions). Immigration officers' powers have steadily increased to parallel powers of police in the last four immigration measures - the 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2006 Acts.

But unlike the police, there are no mechanisms for ensuring immigration officers' accountability or for controlling abuse of powers. The Bill, presented as a measure to defend Britain's borders from illegal immigration and organised crime, went through its second reading largely unopposed - Neil Gerrard MP raised the issue of the lack of accountability of immigration officers, but others welcomed the Bill's increased powers of deportation. Organisations assisting refugee children and detainees expressed serious concerns about the Bill, referring to the Prisons' Inspector Anne Owers' severe criticism of short-term holding centres and to the failure of the government to address or prevent the detention of children and of other vulnerable people. The provisions will lead to more detention - at ports and airports; of those unable to produce their bio-ID cards and suspected of committing 'immigration offences', and of prospective deportees - with no safeguards against abuse.