FORUM

As I understand it, the 'scandal' revolves around the fact that the home office had targets for the removal of illegal immigrants and unfortunately some people who had a perfect right to be in Britain were inadvertently caught up in it.

Obviously it is quite wrong that bona-fide immigrants should be treated in that way, but what is wrong with having a target for the removal of illegals?

Surely the objective for any country should be to remove people who have no right to be there.

The current fuss seems more about the target than the unfortunate people caught up in it.

Am I missing something?

Rudd resigned because she lied/was mistaken about the targets and misled the House. The underlying scandal is that the culture had been dialled up to 'Hostile' and the civil servants stopped using their heads about their role and responded to the targets not the actual law.

Owens88 wrote:Rudd resigned because she lied/was mistaken about the targets and misled the House. The underlying scandal is that the culture had been dialled up to 'Hostile' and the civil servants stopped using their heads about their role and responded to the targets not the actual law.

Surely 'Hostile' to anything illegal is good and with a 'Hostile' environment perhaps there would be fewer attempts at illegal immigration.

Clearly the way the policy was applied was just plain daft.

This is a huge cock up by the UK government, I'm only really surprised that we are surprised. I have always thought that the cock up is less important than what they do about it. Usually the government spend decades denying everything in the hope that all those affected will die but in this case, to be fair, they have "fessed up" and seem to be willing to put it right. People have suffered (as most people have at some stage at the hands of the UK government) but I expect that they will somehow be compensated. As government cock ups go it is pretty normal. The hostile thing (and I agree, what's the problem) is a different matter, that has been spun up to cover something else which they don't want us to know about.

Allan, if we had a 'Hostile' environment towards large scale tax underpayers then perhaps we wouldn't need to be so austere and have to create a 'challenging;' environment for NHS workers and customers, DWP clients....

The truth is that the Home Office civil servants responded to the tenor of the politician not the law passed by parliament. That is a scandal.

The two things you are missing are the nature of the targets and the concept of immigrants being illegal.

Targets to follow up on deporting identified “illegalâ€￾ immigrants is justified, but what this government were doing was setting targets for deportations. Those deportations included anyone who could not prove legal residency or who could be persuaded to leave.

My wife has a UK permanent right to enter visa. However, in the past few years immigration officers have questioned her at the border, tried to get her to swap the visa for a temporary one or even tell her she didn’t need it anymore as she only goes to the UK for periods less than 90 days.

These are all examples of trying to meet a target by removing “low hanging fruitâ€￾.

Secondly, calling people illegal immigrants suggests they are criminals. While some are and some fit the stereotype of a swarthy young man who snuck in on a lorry, most are overstayers, those who changed job, British people’s wives and children and parents, and anyone else who can’t easily prove their right to residency.

I would have thought we, as immigrants to France with Brexit looming, would at least empathize if not totally understand the way a hostile environment towards illegal immigrants can affect legal ones too.

Here is another example of chasing targets. This time including students in immigration figures and then deporting them. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 31906.html