News1 min ago
You Couldn't Make It Up
Is the Home Office totally useless or is it trying to undermine the government's "flagship" plan (or both):
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by drmorgans. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// But this thread is about so-called asylum seekers disappearing from the authorities. How would identity cards (or whatever) cure that? Whether they have them or not, if they’re missing, they’re missing.//
Perhaps as soon as they are escorted off the UK Border Force Taxi Service vessels they should be directed to a tattoist who writes I .I. writ large on their forehead. I have no problem carrying an ID card on me. I have mine still from the 2nd W.W. ending.
NJ //But this thread is about so-called asylum seekers disappearing from the authorities. How would identity cards (or whatever) cure that? Whether they have them or not, if they’re missing, they’re missing.//
You really surprise me !! Identity cards (or some other form of ID) would allow the police, or any form of authority, to ask any person of suspicion to show who they were - go figure ! 🙄
"You really surprise me !! Identity cards (or some other form of ID) would allow the police, or any form of authority, to ask any person of suspicion to show who they were - go figure ! 🙄"
I have figured. These people have disappeared off the radar and there are many thousands of them. How will any more than perhaps a very small number of them, who may have been involved in a crime which the police can be bothered to take an interest in, come under suspicion? Suspicion of what?
I've no real objection to the principle of ID cards. But as far as this particular problem goes (or many others for that matter) they will serve no useful purpose.
Most people can identify themselves to the satisfaction of the police if they come "under suspicion". The problem is that missing asylum seekers are not very much more likely to come "under suspicion" than you or I. The issue is not one of identification, it is a question of apprehension.
NJ ; "Five Bulgarians admitted in court to stealing more than £50 million in fraudulent claims for Universal Credit."
These people were Bulgarians who were in the UK legally and I imagine they would have had ID cards had they been in force. And even if they had not, this fraud was committed using a mix of genuine and forged documents on an industrial scale, with the perpetrators not actually being the people in receipt of the benefits. How would the requirement for an identity card have prevented that?
Moving back to the original question – which involved asylum seekers disappearing – almost everybody here legally has some form of photo identity issued by the government – a passport, driving licence and now a voter ID document is available. As well as that, the police have other methods of confirming a person’s identity.
There are two types of asylum seekers – pending and failed. Those whose cases are pending would not be entitled to an ID document; nor would those whose claims have failed. The former are not likely to disappear until their claim has been decided. The latter might. But when they do, they no longer want anything to do with the authorities. They vanish into the ether and survive in the “black economy” (which is vast). So how will issuing ID cards to the entire population stop people here illegally from living such a life? Are the police to routinely stop people and ask them for their papers (in which case I would object to the requirement to carry an ID card, as I imagine would many others)? But of course they are not going to do that. Apart from anything else, they simply do not have the resources to do so.
People who are not entitled to be in the country only come to the attention of the police if they commit a crime which either the police or immigration officials are interested in (as with the Bulgarians you mentioned). When they do, the police or immigration people have no difficulty in eventually identifying them. As I said, the problem is not with identification (which ID cards might help address) but with apprehension (which they won't).
forgot to add this link;
https:/
"I've never heard any one be troubled or even mention an opinion on having some form of identification."
I'm sure that's true. But this began with this exchange:
=======
NJ //....And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of that 2,143 will similarly go missing as the (small) likelihood of them being removed approaches.//
What does it need to make the government realize how necessary it is that everyone should have an identification document on them, just as they do in almost every other civilized country ?
======
I cannot see how everyone being compelled to carry an identity document with them will prevent people not entitled to be in this country from absconding (which is the topic of the thread).
But to expand a little, the remark I have highlighted above and this extract from your link trouble me:
"Where the card is compulsory, in some member countries it is required to be carried at all times,..."
I would have no intention whatsoever of carrying official identification with me at all times. I carry one when I believe it might be necessary (which is generally when I’m travelling abroad or when I’m driving and will be away from home for more than seven days). At no other time do I carry official identification. I don’t need to prove my identity to anybody. If I do get asked my identity by the police (and they would have to have good reason) there are plenty of ways they can confirm it to their satisfaction.
The idea that "...everyone should have an identification document on them, just as they do in almost every other civilized country" is a bit wide of the mark. In the Wiki article, 31 EU/EEA countries are listed. Of these just 15 require the possession of an ID card with five more requiring either an ID card or a passport. I cannot establish how many (or few) require an ID card to be carried at all times, but the article simply says this:
"However, even in those EEA countries that impose a national identity card requirement on their citizens (above certain age), it is generally not required to carry the identity cards at all times. "
It may be purely a British thing, but UK citizens do not need to produce their “papers” on demand. And nor should they ever be required to do so – certainly not in peacetime, anyway.
//People who are not entitled to be in the country only come to the attention of the police if they commit a crime//
Not true - the cops stop many motorists for minor offences which are not "a crime". In many of these stops the (foreign or not) perps invariably claim to have no ID. ID cards should have been compulsory since WW2.
anyone that wants to be deported to Rwanda please
I dont think that 'deportation' has any sense of 'oo goodie!'
This is being played out in real time on the Post Office Horizon inquiry - no not deportation, the idea of using words to hide meaning rather than illuminated
anomalies, exceptions instead of budgs defect and errors that caused people to go to prison and lose ALL their money
I've never heard any one be troubled or even mention an opinion on having some form of identification."
oh then you didnnt listen to me ( again) or anyone during the war where this measure was universally unpopular.
but for us ( whites) rather than boat people it is all done frooda PNC and DVLA - so by and large they dont have to. - but try it on ( those naughty police) to see if you are trying it on.
