UK: UKBA chief suspended over relaxed passport checks

Brodie Clark who earns £135,000-a-year is being investigated along with two other senior officials over claims that he authorised the stopping of specific checks at ports including Heathrow and Calais.

It is feared that hundreds of thousands of foreigners swept into the country in the past four months without having their passports scrutinised.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8871537/Head-of-UK-Border-Force-suspended-after-passport-vetting-procedures-relaxed.html

What the heck is this all about? The article doesn't make it plain, but it sounds like they were trying to keep the lines moving after staff cuts. But I thought the UKBA was entirely self-funded by our fees, and lord knows those have been going up smartly, so why staff cuts?

Not only that, but what idiot thought it'd be a good PR move to skip some immigration checks?  Did they not consider what the response from The Daily Mail would be if the word got out about what they were doing (or not doing)?

I fully understand (and even support) the idea of intelligently targeting who should be thoroughly checked and who should be given a cursory glance, but this doesn't sound like anyone really thought it through.

Page can't be found.  Did they pull the story?

Page can't be found.  Did they pull the story?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8871537/Head-of-UK-Border-Force-suspended-after-passport-vetting-procedures-relaxed.html

Google.

Eh. Sorry. Link got truncated; fixed now.

I saw this article yesterday and a companion article which is interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15581877

"MPs have accused the UK Border Agency (UKBA) of losing track of a population of asylum seekers and migrants equivalent to the size of Cambridge.

The Home Affairs Select Committee said 124,000 asylum seeker and immigration cases had been "dumped" in an archive, with the agency giving up on them.

The term "controlled archive" was used to try to hide the fact that it was a list of lost applicants, said the MPs."

Frankly I worry how all this plays to the general population in the UK.  Does it make them "more angry" with immigrants?  I think likely so.   Does it turn their anger towards the agency responsible for immigration control?  Probably.  But does it make them think about the issue, and what's wrong with it, or just continue to blame foreign nationals for everything wrong with the UK? 

Frankly I worry how all this plays to the general population in the UK.  Does it make them "more angry" with immigrants?  I think likely so.   Does it turn their anger towards the agency responsible for immigration control?  Probably.  But does it make them think about the issue, and what's wrong with it, or just continue to blame foreign nationals for everything wrong with the UK? 

I'd bet on the population being more angry about immigration, and blame apportioned 33% to the EU, 33% to the government, and 33% to immigrants.

There was also this item today:

Scotland Yard says a high-level employee, whose job was to vet thousands of visa applications from Africa, accepted bribes for allowing Nigerians to enter the country illegally.

Samuel Shoyeju, an entry clearance officer, was arrested while working at the agency’s head offices in Croydon, south London, according to the Sunday Times (£).

He is due to appear in court later this week, expected to be accused of possessing false Nigerian passports and concealing substantial cash payments to a bank account in his name, either knowing or suspecting that they were the proceeds of criminal conduct.

Yes. I don't think anyone is getting the warm fuzzies about immigrants from this stuff.

I'm not sure about Camoscato's math, though (meaning, I don't disagree, I'm just not sure). People seem to be very unclear on the differences between migration within the EU, legal immigrants from outside the EU, illegal immigrants and asylum seekers and refugees. Entirely different bodies of law cover these groups, and we're about the only group that is really crack-downable upon.

People seem to be very unclear on the differences between migration within the EU, legal immigrants from outside the EU, illegal immigrants and asylum seekers and refugees. Entirely different bodies of law cover these groups, and we're about the only group that is really crack-downable upon.

I split it up evenly because - from what I can tell - people are generally mad about immigration, but they don't know who to blame.  Most people don't pay close attention to immigration issues (certainly not as close as we do), so they don't differentiate between EU and non-EU migrants.  They just see Polish guys running the Pizza Hut on the high street in Bedford and figure the government ought to crack down, cuz good honest British people can't get jobs.

Stories like "the government wasn't even checking people's passports" just fuel the fire.