Racial Profiling of Illegal Immigrants

mind you, if ‘they’ can’t get on the benefits bandwagon, at least I’ve seen them setting up hand car wash £5 off their own back, trying to get something going after risking it all getting here, not sitting on their non-brown thoroughbred (obese) arses.

EDIT, sorry, my point is that the immigrant issue is a red herring- the numbers dont stack up- we have enough home-grown people trying but not able to find a job (whilst the economy is knacked)and enough home-grown people who will abuse the system

They were sold on the fact that it’s easy to get benefits so long as they use some tricks.

I am not so sure they read the Daily Mail

Fraud? No much can be done really

given the low levels of fraud in benefits claims have you any proof of what % is illegal immigrants as opposed to false claims by legal residents.

The most common form of benefit fraud is when a person receives benefits, but continues or begins employment. Another common form of fraud is when the receivers of benefits claim that they live alone, but they are financially supported by a partner or spouse.

In 2002, the DWP launched a Targeting Benefit Thieves advertising campaign to spread the message that benefit fraud carried a criminal sanction. The most recent campaign makes claims about the likelihood of getting caught and the consequences of committing benefit fraud using ‘And they thought they’d never be caught’ as the leading slogan.
Its frankly bobbins to assume that illegal immigrants commiting benefit fraud is actually that real an issue except in a certain kind of paranoid individual.

I am sure it does occur but it will be very rare compared to non illegal fraud and illegal working

The most common form of benefit fraud is when a person receives benefits, but continues or begins employment.

From my experience, the most common form of benefit fraud is when the “Jobseeker” declares that they are actively seeking work… 😉

The Tory leadership and the spin doctors who are advising them on beefing up their public appearance on this toxic but comparatively minor issue (in real terms )purely to recoup votes from UKIP and to seperate themselves electorally from their Lib Dems coalition partners, should hang their heads in shame.They are creating a climate of fear amongst a gullible pubic by demonising ethnic groups in a way that the EDL/BNP can only dream of.Innocent people will suffer,as always.

DenDennis – Member

mind you, if ‘they’ can’t get on the benefits bandwagon, at least I’ve seen them setting up hand car wash £5 off their own back, trying to get something going after risking it all getting here, not sitting on their non-brown thoroughbred (obese) arses.

That I have no problem with because that is their hard earn money. All credits to them but not all are able to do so to sustain themselves.

Junkyard – lazarus

I am not so sure they read the Daily Mail

given the low levels of fraud in benefits claims have you any proof of what % is illegal immigrants as opposed to false claims by legal residents.

Unfortunately whether they read DM or not the fact that it happens.

As for the % of claimants that does not take much to figure out really since the legal residents will always outweigh the illegal ones. i.e. they are (the illegals) in foreign land. However, the legal residents will argue that it is their “birth” right to milk the system as compare to the illegal ones. Hence, the future tension.

😯

“It can look reasonable from that angle but when you turn it around, what are the odds that a particular asian or african person in the street is an illegal immigrant? Very, very small. “

Yes, this is the whole point about racial profiling that gets missed: leaving aside the legality and morality of it, it’s just not very effective. Race is such a low value indicator of illegal immigration that its a practical useless selection criteria for dedication of resources. If you want to find illegal immigrants (and I’m not sure the government really does), you need a whole bunch of other indicators.

By the way, iirc the term racial profiling comes from New Jersey where it was the supposed substantiation for white cops to stop black drivers: “most of the car thieves we arrest are black so we should target black drivers because they’re more likely to be car thieves”. But that was patent nonsense and a fig leaf for knuckle-dragging bigotry. Weirdly, the critique of racial profiling here seems to assume there is some evil science or logic behind it – but there isn’t.

When even UKIP are saying you’re going to far, you really have to have a rethink:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/02/ukip-condemns-home-office-illegal-immigrants

Such a waste of energy all this country bollocks. Let’s get rid of all borders, pool the earth’s resources and knowledge and explore the universe together in peace.

That’s that sorted, next!

Bloody humans, coming onto our planet uninvited. Martian jobs for Martian workers, I say.

the minister responsible was explaining on radio how they operations[ locations] were intelligence led and they could only stop people base don evidence – which could include the way you acted when realising they were there- never quite explained what the intelligence was though I feel certain it was non existent compelling in a sexed up dossier kind of way

He also admitted they had no actual powers and you did not even need to tell them your name

It seems to me , ignoring your view on this, that they were acting ultra vires.

Still the top tip , if you listen to radio 4 is just dont tell them your name and walk off – as they have no actual intelligence on you personally. Despite the operation being “intelligence led” they have no actual powers to do anything

If I ever see them I will have some fun acting shifty then getting them to explain their powers to me

😀

Yes, this is the whole point about racial profiling that gets missed: leaving aside the legality and morality of it, it’s just not very effective. Race is such a low value indicator of illegal immigration that its a practical useless selection criteria for dedication of resources.

Seeing as the Walthamstow operation that has received the most criticism resulted in the arrest of fourteen people, I think its clear that whatever criteria was applied on the day was far from being practically useless.

How many of them were found to be here illegally?

…and that the criteria applied on the day went beyond just race I.e. there were a whole bunch of other indicators, as someone (me) so brilliantly phrased it earlier on the page.

Seeing as the Walthamstow operation that has received the most criticism resulted in the arrest of fourteen people, I think its clear that whatever criteria was applied on the day was far from being practically useless.

If we stopped everyone in a town centre shopping centre we would find a similar number had broken the law – what it proves is that members of the public break the law

Unfortunately whether they read DM or not the fact that it happens.

Oh the assert something ludicrous, offer no evidence to support it, insist it is still true approach to informed debate…well played that “trumps” any rational point I could make.
To repeat , as an illegal immigrant has no access to benefits exactly why would they come here to access them ? Its frothing paranoid gibberish hence you dont even try to offer any evidence to support your view that this is why they do it

…….resulted in the arrest of fourteen people, I think its clear that whatever criteria was applied on the day was far from being practically useless.

Perhaps the UK Border Agency can use its very scare resources more effectively than organising high publicity political stunts to counter the UKIP threat which the Tory government is facing ?

Immigration backlog tops 500,000 and will take 37 years to clear, warn MPs

The total features more than 4,000 foreign criminals the government is trying to deport, 33,500 asylum cases and 61,000 cases which are still awaiting inputting into computer systems.

It has risen by 56 per cent in just three months. At the current rate it will take 37 years to clear and the Home Office cannot confirm that this is the last of the backlogs.

never quite explained what the intelligence was

I presume it’s the same trick they were pulling when they were using metal detectors at stations and “inviting” selected people to go through them.

Refusal to “voluntarily” go through a metal detector was seen as reasonable suspicion that you might be carrying a knife, so the officers were then able to search you.

Yes indeed that was what i was suggesting the intelligence was paper thin and the only example he could cite was someone acting “shifty”

I would be very surprised if these were legal and the “intelligence ” real

Yes, if it was real intelligence against specific individuals, they’d go for them at their house or workplace. Not randomly hope they’ll wander through a station.

yes it is like targeting a road for uninsured cars/illegal drivers etc – I am sure it would work [ catch someone] as long as we picked a busy enough road. However I fail to see how I can “intelligently” spot the legal from the non legal

Is it the colour of the car?

Not randomly hope they’ll wander through a station.

“Publicly checking that people at railway stations have the correct papers is a very good way of instilling fear Helga”

So if you’re stopped at one of these random checks, how do you prove you’re not an illegal immigrant?

So if you’re stopped at one of these random checks, how do you prove you’re not an illegal immigrant?

The secret handshake.

The secret handshake.

Is that the one where if you use fingers rather than a hook, they let you stay?

if you’re stopped at one of these random checks, how do you prove you’re not an illegal immigrant?

You dont have to,unless they have some evidence. Clearly they dont or they would go to your place of work or home address

I wouldn’t believe anything written in The Telegraph about immigrants & immigration!

You dont have to,unless they have some evidence.

According to the Home Office as soon as you are arrested you are no longer a “suspect” but an “offender”.

So presumably all they need to do is arrest you on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant and you immediately become offender – no further evidence is required.

Immigration offenders arrested in Home Office operations

Although to be fair to the Home Office despite initially referring to those arrested as “immigration offenders”, they do later on one occasion refer to them as “suspected immigration offenders”.

It’s as if they aren’t entirely sure of the legal position of those they have arrested. You’d think that the Home Office would check with their lawyers in their legal department, wouldn’t you ?

Such a sloppy and casual attitude by the Home Office towards the legal process doesn’t bode well for those they have arrested.

Such a sloppy and casual attitude by the Home Office towards the legal process doesn’t bode well for those they have arrested.

It’s OK, they’re not white, so normal due process etc doesn’t apply. Keeps the backbenchers happy you see.

Anyone seen Children of Men – very similar dystopian future in that film…

Junkyard – lazarus

“Unfortunately whether they read DM or not the fact that it happens.”

Oh the assert something ludicrous, offer no evidence to support it, insist it is still true approach to informed debate…well played that “trumps” any rational point I could make.

Yes, it does ludicrous when I do not have the actual statistical evidence to support my views. I guess I just have to wait for all the evidence to surface by itself at a later date. Hope it’s not too late by then …

To repeat , as an illegal immigrant has no access to benefits exactly why would they come here to access them ? Its frothing paranoid gibberish hence you dont even try to offer any evidence to support your view that this is why they do it

Put it another way what evidence do you need to access benefits?

Identity card? Nope, no such thing here because this is free society.
Passport? Nope, never need to travel.
Driving license? Nope, never need to drive.
Bank account? Yes, got that.
NI? Yes, got that.
Address? Yes, got that.
Bills? Yes, got that.
What else?

Does that mean a person can access benefits with the information above?

How do you proof the person is genuine? What checks are in place?
😯

chewkw you are basically stating the case for ID cards

chewkw – Member

Put it another way what evidence do you need to access benefits?

A NI number, which requires proof of ID

What happens when you apply for a National Insurance number
Jobcentre Plus will arrange an ‘Evidence of Identity’ interview for you or send you a postal application. If relevant, they will confirm the date, time and location of your interview and what information/documentation you need to support your application.
What to expect at the ‘Evidence of identity’ interview
The interview will usually be one-to-one (unless, for example, you need an interpreter). You will be asked questions about why you need a National Insurance number, your background and circumstances.
You will also have to prove your identity. Bring as many ‘identity documents’ (originals, not photocopies) as you can to your interview. Examples of documents which count are:
valid passport (UK or foreign)
national identity card (UK or foreign)
residence permit or residence card including biometric immigration residency documents
full birth or adoption certificate
full marriage or civil partnership certificate
driving licence (UK or foreign)
If you don’t have any of these – or other – identity documents you still must go to the interview. The information you are able to provide might be enough to prove your identity.
During the interview a National Insurance number application form will be completed and you will be asked to sign it.

And don’t you need ID to open a bank account?