If it was up 2 me

Tag: illegal-immigration

  • Rachel Reeves’ Licensing Oversight: Why the Focus Needs to Shift to Bigger Issues

    Rachel Reeves’ Licensing Oversight: Why the Focus Needs to Shift to Bigger Issues

    Advertisements

    Examining the Real Challenges Facing Britain Beyond Political Point-Scoring

    –

    Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, has found herself under scrutiny in recent days for failing to obtain a selective licence while letting out her house during her stay at Number 11. This incident, though perhaps an administrative oversight by her letting agent, has sparked a media and political storm. It is worth considering both the significance of her mistake and whether the attention it receives is proportionate, especially when set against the backdrop of the more pressing problems facing the country.

    –

    Rachel Reeves’ Licensing Oversight

    –

    The law requires landlords to obtain the appropriate selective licences when letting out property in certain areas. Rachel Reeves’ failure to comply with this regulation, regardless of whether it was her agent’s fault, constitutes a breach for which she should be held accountable. Just as an individual cannot plead ignorance if they fail to pay their TV licence, politicians are not above the law and must face the same penalties as ordinary citizens. If a fine is due, it should be paid, and the matter put to rest.

    –

    However, critics have seized on this issue, making political hay rather than focusing on Reeves’ performance in her official capacity. Questions about whether she has paid the correct tax, stamp duty, or council tax are fair, but the intensity of the reaction from opposing parties raises the question of priorities. Is this truly the best use of Parliament’s time and energy?

    –

    Advertisements

    Political Distraction: Missing the Bigger Picture

    –

    The spectacle of politicians pouncing on minor infractions detracts from the serious issues that affect everyday Britons. Instead of fixating on individual mistakes, the opposition—and indeed all parties—should turn their attention to the broader challenges that impact quality of life across the country. Let us explore some of these pressing problems in detail.

    –

    1. Boat Crossings: Weather as the Only Deterrent

    –

    Illegal boat crossings across the Channel remain a contentious issue. So far this year, the most effective deterrent to these crossings appears to have been unfavourable weather conditions rather than government policy. This highlights a critical failure to introduce robust, humane, and effective measures to address the root causes of migration and manage the UK’s borders. Without a comprehensive strategy, the government risks ceding control to circumstance rather than policy, leaving both migrants and local communities in a state of perpetual uncertainty.

    –

    2. The “Two In, One Out” Policy: A Questionable Approach

    –

    The government’s “one in, one out” policy is not a solution to the countries problems as previously highlighted. It didn’t take a rocket scientist (I am not a Rocket Scientist) to predict that it was only a matter of time that those being deported would return on a Small Boat.

    –

    3. Next Month’s Budget: Redefining the Working Class

    –

    With the upcoming Budget, there is growing concern over the government’s definition of “working people,” now apparently set at those earning under £48,000 per year. This threshold risks excluding many who work overtime, hold multiple jobs, or strive to provide for their families. By narrowing the definition, the government could alienate middle-income earners who feel the squeeze of rising costs but do not qualify for targeted support. A more nuanced understanding of economic hardship is needed to ensure that policies address the realities of modern working life.

    –

    4. Mounting Benefit Bills

    –

    Britain’s welfare system is under immense strain, with benefit bills continuing to rise. This trend reflects both an increase in the cost of living and the persistent challenges faced by vulnerable populations. The debate surrounding benefits often devolves into arguments about dependency, but the underlying issues—such as low pay, insecure employment, and high housing costs—require thoughtful solutions. Reform efforts must focus on creating pathways out of poverty rather than simply cutting costs.

    –

    5. Mounting Unemployment and Hidden Figures

    –

    Official unemployment figures may not tell the whole story. There is growing suspicion that some individuals are counted as disabled rather than unemployed, masking the true scale of joblessness. In addition, the cost of Employers’ National Insurance (NI) is viewed by many as a deterrent to hiring, particularly within small businesses. For the working class, these factors combine to make stable employment harder to secure and sustain, undermining economic recovery and social cohesion.

    –

    6. NHS Waiting Times and Systemic Strain

    –

    The National Health Service (NHS) is facing unprecedented pressures, with waiting times at Accident & Emergency (A&E) departments reaching unacceptable levels. Personal experiences reveal that while frontline staff remain dedicated and compassionate, there are glaring issues with system coordination and management. As winter approaches, the situation is likely to deteriorate further, placing patients at risk and staff under unbearable strain. Addressing these challenges requires investment, innovation, and a willingness to rethink how healthcare is delivered.

    Advertisements

    +

    Conclusion: Refocus on What Matters

    –

    Rachel Reeves’ licensing oversight deserves to be addressed in accordance with the law, but it is not a matter that warrants days of political grandstanding. The real work of opposition—and indeed government—should be to tackle the substantive issues that affect millions of Britons every day. From border security and regulatory reform to the cost of living, unemployment, and the future of the NHS, these are the challenges that demand our leaders’ attention. Only by focusing on what truly matters can politics begin to serve the people, rather than itself.

  • The Labour Government’s BRIT Card Proposal:Tackle immigration or Government Oversight

    The Labour Government’s BRIT Card Proposal:Tackle immigration or Government Oversight

    Labour’s proposed ‘BRIT Card’ aims to establish a mandatory digital ID for UK workers to combat illegal employment and immigration. However, concerns about costs, privacy, and effectiveness undermine public trust. Alternatives, such as enhancing the national insurance system and targeted enforcement, may offer more efficient solutions without significant disruption or expense.-

    –

    -Analysing the Merits, Risks, and Alternatives to Mandatory Digital ID Cards

    –

    Introduction: Labour’s BRIT Card and Its Stated Aims

    –

    Recently, Labour leader Keir Starmer announced plans for a mandatory ‘BRIT Card’ identity card, intended to curb illegal working and deter illegal immigration. This digital ID would become a prerequisite for lawful employment in the UK, forming the centrepiece of Labour’s efforts to demonstrate robust control over the labour market and immigration system.

    –

    While the government suggests that the proposal seeks to address long-standing concerns over illegal employment, the public are not convinced.

    –

    Furthermore, there is significant questions regarding cost, effectiveness, privacy, and the necessity of a new ID system and what is  the true purpose.

    –

    Current Identification Landscape in the UK

    –

    At present, individuals in the UK can prove their identity and right to work using a variety of documents: passports, driving licences, biometric residence permits, and national insurance numbers. While most UK adults possess at least one of these forms of ID, a small yet notable minority—often the most vulnerable—do not.

    –

    The government’s rationale for a universal digital ID is that it would eliminate ambiguity and standardise right-to-work checks. However, this overlooks the utility of existing IDs for the vast majority and the administrative burden on those without any such documentation.

    –

    Passports and driving licences already function as widely accepted photo IDs, but they come with their own barriers: the cost of obtaining or renewing them can be prohibitive for low-income individuals, and not everyone drives or travels abroad. National insurance numbers, meanwhile, are essential for employment but currently lack a photo or biometric component, which limits their utility as a standalone proof of identity.

    –

    Financial and Administrative Costs

    –

    Implementing a new, mandatory identity system is no trivial expense. Previous government estimates for similar schemes, such as the scrapped ID card project of the 2000s, ran into billions of pounds. Even with advances in digital technology, initial outlays for infrastructure, IT systems, and public outreach would be substantial. Ongoing maintenance, cybersecurity, and support for those struggling with digital access would further increase costs. It is likely that the taxpayer would bear the brunt of these expenses, raising questions about value for money in a period of fiscal restraint.

    –

    There are also indirect costs to consider: employers would need to update recruitment processes, train staff, and potentially invest in new verification technology. For individuals, especially those unfamiliar with digital systems, navigating registration could prove daunting.

    –

    Advertisements

    Implementation and Effectiveness: Will the BRIT Card Work?

    –

    The effectiveness of the BRIT Card hinges on comprehensive registration and consistent enforcement. Everyone of working age—citizens and migrants alike—would need to register, provide biometric data, and keep their details up to date. Yet, experience with government digital projects suggests that achieving universal compliance is highly challenging. Those liable to work illegally may simply avoid the system or find ways to circumvent it, such as using forged documents or working in the informal economy.

    –

    Moreover, determined employers who currently flout right-to-work checks may be equally adept at sidestepping a new ID regime. The deterrent effect, therefore, risks being limited unless accompanied by a step-change in enforcement resources and penalties.

    –

    Privacy, Digital Exclusion, and Data Security Concerns

    Centralising sensitive personal data in a single digital ID system raises profound privacy risks. The more data collected—biometric, personal, employment—the greater the consequences if that data is breached. Past incidents, both in the UK and abroad, demonstrate that no system is immune to hacking or accidental leaks.

    –

    Digital exclusion is another pressing issue. Significant numbers of people—especially older adults, those with disabilities, or individuals lacking internet access—could struggle to register or maintain their digital ID. Ensuring equitable access would require costly support services and alternative registration methods, potentially undermining the efficiency arguments for a digital-first approach.

    –

    Finally, there is the risk of ‘scope creep’: once a digital ID exists, the temptation to use it for other purposes—such as accessing public services, policing, or even voting—may grow, raising further civil liberties concerns.

    –

    Advertisements

    Comparison to Existing Laws and Penalties

    UK employers are already legally obliged to check employees’ right to work, with substantial fines and potential criminal sanctions for non-compliance. The Home Office provides guidance and maintains a list of acceptable documents. While enforcement is sometimes criticised as patchy, the legislative framework is well-established. The BRIT Card, therefore, represents a new administrative layer rather than a fundamental legal shift.

    –

    Crucially, the existing system allows for a degree of flexibility that could be lost with a rigid, one-size-fits-all digital ID requirement. For those with complex or unusual immigration circumstances, or those whose documents are in the process of being renewed, this could create real hardship.

    –

    An Alternative: Enhancing the National Insurance System and Targeted Enforcement

    –

    Rather than create an entirely new identity infrastructure, a more proportionate solution could involve modernising the existing national insurance (NI) system. By incorporating a secure photo ID or biometric element into NI numbers, the government could strengthen right-to-work checks without duplicating documentation requirements. Such an enhancement would leverage a system already embedded in the employment process and familiar to employers and workers alike.

    –

    This approach should be paired with targeted, intelligence-led enforcement focusing on high-risk sectors and repeat offenders, instead of blanket bureaucracy. Investment in digital verification tools for employers and regular audits would further bolster compliance, while avoiding the pitfalls of a universal digital ID.

    –

    What would this cost. Well, I would set up a task force of 400 HMRC investigators to chase down illegal workers which I estimate would cost £30million.  Both the individual and the employer would be fined. If they only found 5 illegal worker each and the employer was fines £15000 (the current law allows up to £45k for the first offence), this would cover the cost. However, since it is suggested, there are over 500,000 illegal workers in the UK, there is a potential of £22 Billion to recover.

    –

    I personally would start the fine at £10,000 for businesses and £2500 for individuals. The reason for this is the smaller business would go out of business with a £45k fine, but £10k should be enough of a deterrent. Remember, both the employer and the employee are doing something illegal.

    –

    Those foreign nationals without any right to stay would be sent home.

     

    Personal Perspective: A Flawed Solution in Search of a Problem?

    –

    Labour’s BRIT Card proposal appears to be a politically expedient response to anxiety over immigration and illegal working. However, the costs—financial, administrative, and personal—seem disproportionate to the likely benefits. The risks to privacy and the spectre of digital exclusion cannot be ignored, especially when existing systems can be strengthened at lower cost and with less disruption.

    –

    Public trust in government data handling is already fragile, and the creation of a new, centralised identity database risks eroding it further. Rather than pursue a grand new scheme, the government would do better to focus on pragmatic reforms to the national insurance system and smarter, more targeted enforcement.

     

    –

    , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Advertisements

    Leave a comment

  • Does Keir Starmer think we are stupid

    It was reported on the news today that the government wants to speed up the closing down of the hotels that accommodate illegal immigrants / asylum seekers.

    –

    But all this means is he will kick the problem down and put them up in rented houses within the community.

    –

    Kier, you have not convinced me. You clearly do not understand or appreciate the voters concerns.

    Advertisements

      -email – ifitwasup2me@hotmail.com

      Leave a comment

    • 280 migrants arrested, only 89 to be deported! Why?

      280 migrants arrested, only 89 to be deported! Why?

      I read today in the Daily Express that 280 migrants have been arrested in food delivery rider raids.

      –

      About time something is started but that is not enough. The post goes onto say that 89 of these are set to be kicked out of the UK and that 59 may (I repeat may) lose their tax funded accommodation and support payment. The above really does not deal with the issues in any depth. Another sticking plaster.

      Advertisements

      –

      Firstly, only deporting 89, They have come over here illegally and are working illegally. They have clearly committed 2 offences. 

      –

      In another article on the same page, regarding the protester outside hotels, the government has been quoted as saying, we will never tolerate unlawful or violent behaviour. Whilst I agree with this, it is abundantly clear from the above that the government would and does tolerate unlawful behaviour, otherwise 280 migrants arrested would be deported.

      –

      I have a saying that i use often,

      if you are going to have standards, make sure you have at least 2. (this is meant to be a joke but seems like the politicians consider it a rule)

      –

      The next point is the removal of tax funded accommodation and support payment, what a pointless policy. If the government does this, what will the migrants do?  They will turn to crime.

      –

      So what would I do

      It seems straight forward to me, as they have already committed 2 offences, they should be deported forthwith. We should have a fast-track process / court to deal with this. As the government said, we should not tolerate unlawful behaviour.

      –

      Advertisements

      The illegal migrant issue is only getting worse, the country does not have the space to take all these migrants, approx. 1 million last year. There is not enough housing, the NHS does not have the capacity etc. The government finances (My taxes) cannot support the situation. As for the crimes that are being committed, you only need to have a look at the statistic (and understand them) and you should be extremely concerned.

      Leave a comment

    • Call me a Cynic – One in, One Out Migration Policy

      Call me a Cynic – One in, One Out Migration Policy

      Highlighting a Critical Flaw in the UK Government’s One-In, One-Out Migration Policy

      –

      The Unintended Consequence of Repeated Channel Crossings

      –

      The UK government’s “one in, one out” migration policy has been presented as a balanced approach to controlling immigration, aiming to deter unauthorized arrivals by stipulating that for each migrant arriving by irregular means – such as crossing the Channel – another will be deported, and in their place, the UK will take a migrant from a designated safe country. While this approach might, at first glance, appear to be a pragmatic solution, it contains a significant and problematic loophole that undermines its intended purpose.

      –

      The Issue of Recurring Channel Crossings

      –

      One of the fundamental flaws lies in the policy’s inability to address repeat attempts by the same individuals. Under the current framework, a migrant who is intercepted crossing the Channel is subject to deportation under the one in, one out scheme. However, once deported, there is little to prevent that individual from attempting to cross again. If they succeed, they once more qualify for deportation, and the cycle repeats.

      –

      Each instance is treated as a separate “in”, and so the UK agrees to take another individual from abroad in exchange. In effect, a single determined migrant could, through multiple crossings and subsequent removals, trigger the acceptance of several other migrants into the UK – all while the original individual continues to reattempt entry.

      –

      A Policy That Multiplies, Rather Than Resolves, the Problem

      –

      The main intention behind the one in, one out policy is to create a disincentive for irregular migration and to keep numbers controlled. However, by allowing the same person to be counted multiple times, the policy risks inflating the number of migrants accepted into the UK in exchange for a single individual’s repeated actions. Instead of dealing with “one migrant, one solution”, the net result is a multiplication of arrivals.

      –

      This loophole could be exploited not just by individuals, but by smuggling networks, who may encourage repeat attempts knowing that each new crossing has broader implications on accepted numbers. The UK’s willingness to take new arrivals in exchange for every individual intercepted, without addressing repeat offenders, creates a perverse incentive: the more times an individual tries, the more people are ultimately granted entry.

      –

      So What would I do

      –

      I would abandon this policy of one in, one out.

      –

      We need a policy  that covers all aspects of Illegal Immigration, including specialised detention, clear rules on immediate deportation, specialist courts for quick processing of those working illegally or immigrants caught carrying out criminal offences.

      –

      We need robust and quick deportation rules for immigrants that break our laws, with no appeal. If they are in our country, they should obey our laws.

      –

      I believe which ever political party comes up with the most robust policy for the next election will win the next election. I know who is winning this one at the moment!

      Leave a comment

    • The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the British Taxpayer

      The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the British Taxpayer

      An Overview of Financial Impact and Migrant Numbers

      –

      Introduction

      Illegal immigration has become a significant point of discussion within the United Kingdom, with concerns about its financial impact on public services and government budgets. This report aims to provide a clear overview of the estimated costs to the British taxpayer, specifically focusing on hotel accommodation, social benefits, NHS expenditure, and the scale of illegal immigration in recent years.

      –

      Understanding Illegal Immigration

      Illegal immigration refers to the act of entering or residing in the UK without legal permission, which can encompass individuals who overstay their visas, enter clandestinely, or seek asylum but remain after a failed application. This group is distinct from those who arrive through legal migration channels or who have formal refugee status.

      –

      Costs of Hotel Accommodation

      One of the most visible costs associated with illegal and asylum-related migration in recent years has been the use of hotels to house migrants awaiting resolution of their status. Due to a shortage of suitable accommodation and delays in processing, many individuals have been placed in hotels at significant cost.

      • It is estimated has reported that the cost of housing asylum seekers (which includes both legal and those with unresolved status) in hotels has reached over £8 million per day as of 2025.
      • This equates to roughly £2.84 billion per year spent on hotel accommodation alone.

      –

      Benefits and Public Assistance

      Generally, illegal immigrants are not eligible for mainstream public benefits such as Universal Credit, housing benefit, or child benefit. However, those with pending asylum claims may receive a subsistence allowance and accommodation through the asylum support system.

      • Asylum seekers who are awaiting a decision are provided with basic support, amounting to around £45 per week per person, on top of accommodation.  Additional cost to taxpayer over £1Billion per year.
      • For those without recourse to public funds, only emergency assistance or support for children may be provided.
      • The overall expenditure on such support has increased in recent years, largely due to the rise in case backlogs.

      –

      NHS Costs

      Healthcare costs related to illegal immigration are difficult to calculate precisely, as emergency care is provided to all individuals in the UK regardless of status, while non-urgent care is chargeable for undocumented migrants. However, enforcement of these charges is inconsistent, and some costs fall onto the NHS.

      • Estimates of the cost of NHS care for all visitors and temporary migrants (including illegal immigrants) are in the range of £300–£400 million per year, though only a portion of this is directly attributable to people without legal status.
      • Emergency care, maternity, and certain infectious disease treatments are provided free of charge to protect public health.

      –

      Numbers of Illegal Immigrants

      Accurately quantifying the number of illegal immigrants is inherently challenging due to the nature of their status. However, several estimates and government data points exist.

      • In 2019, the Pew Research Center estimated there were between 800,000 and 1.2 million undocumented migrants living in the UK.
      • Since 2018, the number of people arriving in the UK by small boats across the English Channel has increased each year. In 2022 alone, over 45,000 people crossed in small boats.
      • Cumulatively, it is estimated that over 175,000 people have arrived via small boats since 2018.

      –

      Asylum Grants

      The number of people granted asylum fluctuates each year, depending on application rates and government policy.

      • Over the past five years, approximately 80,000 individuals have been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the UK.

      –

      Illegal Migrants Working

      There is plenty of evidence that many illegal Migrants are working as fast food delivery riders. In this situation, not only are they not paying taxes, they are taking employment away from someone else.

      –

      Summary

      • Hotel accommodation for migrants now costs the UK taxpayer over £4 billion per year.
      • Direct benefit payments to illegal immigrants are limited, but support for asylum seekers does represent a notable public expense, at least £1 Billion.
      • NHS expenditures for undocumented migrants are hard to pinpoint, but total costs for all visitors and temporary migrants is around £0.5 Billion annually.
      • The number of illegal immigrants in the UK is estimated to be between 800,000 and 1.2 million, that is over 1.5% of the population.  More significantly, that is 2.7% of the working age population.
      •  Small boat arrivals have surpassed 175,000 since 2018.
      • Over 80,000 people have been granted asylum in the last five years.

      –

      Conclusion

      The country cannot continue to support the illegal migrants as it currently does. I should be remembered the word “illegal” ,these people should not be here. We should not tolerate illegal, let alone support it. The cost is at least £5 billion and is continuing to grow with the increase in migrants.

      –

      So What would I do

      –

      Well, we never tried Rwanda, so that is where I would start (or something similar). Any illegal immigrant would have a choice: return home or go to Rwanda for assessment. As they have come here illegally, they will not have permission to stay, so it’s straight to the airport.

      –

      Illegal Immigrants would not be put up in Hotels.  I would utilise empty warehouses, or even build purpose made warehouse that could be equipped with basic facilities. I can already hear people commenting but this would be far better than the shanty town camp site we have seen in Europe / Calais. We should be providing “adequate”, not very comfortable hotels.

      –

      Any companies employing “illegal” immigrants will be fined £10,000 for each occurrence, however it is caused. This should never happen, but it is clear the correct checks are not being done. There will be a fast track court to deal with this that will run 7 days per week with a simple threshold for guilt, have they worked without permission and has the company paid them. Furthermore, those who have been caught of illegal working are deported.

      –

      The UK currently only spent £2 billion on border force. I would double this to provide a significant number of additional officers and administration. The Border force powers will be enhanced so that they can work closely with the police and have the same powers (arrest, search and seizure) but directed towards illegal immigration.

      –

      Where would I get the money from? Well, I have come up with ways to save money in my other blogs but in this case, this will be an investment that will after a period of time, be offset by the saving in the illegal immigration cost.

      –

      These actions may appear harsh to some, but we should not tolerate any illegal activity from foreign nationals, If you do not want to comply with the UK Laws, do not bother coming.

      –

      France’s  President Macron  made a comment  that basically said the UK was a “soft touch.”. He is right and the government needs to deal with this. However, I have no confidence that this Labour government has the ability to take action.  So, we wait for another 4 years of matters getting worse causing the country to become more divided than ever.

      –

      There is so much more that can be said on the subject and  I am sure further comments will be made in future.

        Leave a comment