When you fill out the form
State that your child is a stateless refugee from Iraq and a failed suicide bomber.
and wait for the reaction.
Brit schools are sharing the census records of up to 1,500 pupils per month as part of an attempt by the Home Office to crack down on illegal immigrants. The agreement has been in place since June 2015 under a memorandum of understanding with the Department for Education (DfE). The information came to light after it was …
Well, that is no surprise.
After all we had the Home Secretary paraphrasing sections out of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service at the Tory conference to a roaring applause.
So much for any ideas about this government complying to international conventions too - this is in open violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Specifically:
Article 2 - non discrimination. You cannot create hostile environment for a specific category of children. Sorry, not allowed.
Article 6 - life, survival and development. I do not see how this combines with the legal obligation of UK for provide everything reasonable for every child to achieve its full potential.
Article 9, 13, 14, 16, 22, 26
Article 28 - Every child has the right to an education
Somebody should really take the both of the witches to court here - the convention applies to EVERY CHILD REGARDLESS OF ARE THEY LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. End of story.
If I were them I would play against Article 6 and 28 that the Home Office in conjunction with Education is in a position to find if any children who are recorded as entering the country are actually receiving suitable education and have not disappeared into a illegal and possibly dangerous (health&safety or psychologically) cult-run or religious school.
I am sure that the UN did not intend these rights to support human trafficking and illegal immigration across borders. When signing up to be a member of the UN, the UN had to have meant these rights to be assigned to the citizens of each country.
If you start applying the same rights to non-citizens, as you do to citizens, and you end up having to educate the children of illegal immigrants at the expense of citizens, then that will be another magnet for illegal immigration, which I am sure we can all agree, is a bad thing.
Hey, OK maybe they don't pay taxes but illegal immigrants still work hard and do low-paid jobs so that's good, say the ministry types.
Even better if they are too scared to send their kids to school (lest they may be found by home office enforcers) and instead send them to do... even lower-paid jobs!
If I remember correctly, it is explicitly forbidden for schools in Switzerland to give to the police the list of the students. From what I heard, the reason is that it is better to have children of illegals in school rather than roaming the streets. Maybe also, it is more important for all children to get a school education, than to catch all illegals.
If there are people in this country who don't particularly like us I don't think that giving them even further cause to not like us is the best approach. Especially if this drives them further underground.
I would much rather have 'illegal kids' in school getting to recognise we are far from perfect but we aren't all bad than further isolated and more exposed to radicalising influences.
I would prefer any 'illegal neighbours' to consider me more a friend than an enemy. The government however seems hell-bent on pursuit of punishment rather than reform, sees it better to prove we are a nasty lot who don't care for them at all, regardless of the consequences. It seems they would rather create and let enmity towards us continue than try and break that chain.
I don't feel that being 'illegal' is a particular problem of itself. If they are here then, unless they do present a specific threat to our security, it would in my opinion be better to turn them into legal and contributing members of society. That can include some sort of punishment for their having been here illegally, but community service and similar may be appropriate.
I know this will get me innumerable down votes, but I cannot agree with the argument that it is better to turn illegal immigrants into "legals".
Call it what you want, but if they are here illegally, then they are criminals and should be treated as such. I'm not suggesting you also treat their children as criminals, but by saying "yeah, that's alright, you're here illegally but we'll give your children a free education anyway" encourages more illegal immigrants.
Why should they be rewarded for their illegal behaviour? I know many will claim they're refugees from war-torn countries such as Syria - and that may be true. But a refugee should seek asylum in the first safe country they come to - not the one that will give their children a free education.
"yeah, that's alright, you're a murderer but we'll give your children a free education anyway"
"yeah, that's alright, you're a bank robber but we'll give your children a free education anyway"
"yeah, that's alright, you're a shoplfter but we'll give your children a free education anyway"
You're absolutely right. We should start withholding education from the children of criminals. Anything less is just encouraging them. /s
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm not talking about removing something that they are already entitled to, so it is a completely false argument.
In the examples cited above, their children were already entitled to a free education before said crimes were commited.
I see no reason to reward criminals by giving them something they have no entitlement to. Especially when they have no right to be in this country in the first place.
Yes, but you're not rewarding criminals, you're arguing for punishing children for the actions of their parents. Sure, people here illegally would benefit from education of their children and it's not free but so what? The more education we spread around the place, the better off society as a whole is.
>In the examples cited above, their children were already entitled to a free education before said crimes were commited.
No, not necessarily, he could have committed the crime before the kids were born. You claim kids of criminals should not be allowed into schools.
1. Officially, kids (under the age of 18) cannot be illegal immigrants.
2. Offspring is not responsible for any crimes committed by its parents.
"I'm an official criminal because I told a traffic warden to fuck off once. Are you seriously fucking suggesting that my children's education should suffer because of it? You twat."
Where did I say that or even suggest that? Learn to read before you post.
Actually, living or working here illegally is a crime. Therefore an illegal immigrant is a criminal.
Correct, have a +1.
However, last time I heard, children are not in any way responsible for the crimes of their parents. At least in civilized societies.
"However, last time I heard, children are not in any way responsible for the crimes of their parents."
Absolutely correct. But should they be rewarded for the crimes of their parents?
We need a deterrent as a means of controlling our borders, and rewarding all those that break our immigration laws by giving their children a free education is hardly much of a deterrent - more of a welcome mat.
Unless it can be proved otherwise in court, the ill-gotten gains of the Adams family, Ronnie Biggs and most politicians will be inherited by their children. Even the murderous Earl Lucan's children inherited his wealth and title and there are many families of criminals who have received monies from books and films about the crimes committed by their fathers. So how do we draw the line prventing children from benefiting from their parents crimes?
Shall we take away all the money that children earn in the adult life that their parents got from defrauding the benefit systems and used to buy the child clothes, toys and other life essentials.
Perhaps we should take away the assets of your family as you buy goods that are no doubt made, picked or produced by criminals in order to make money. That makes you an accessory to the crime. And remember lots of "illegal" migrants work on farms, in crappy food factories and the likes of Amazon and other companies whic you will benefit from.
Your arguments are simple regugitations of lazy thinking, hazy false news facts and basically a lack of knowledge.
"Your arguments are simple regugitations of lazy thinking, hazy false news facts and basically a lack of knowledge."
Which pretty much sums up your entire post.
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the police and courts can sieze property and otherwise claim back the "ill-gotten" of those found guilty and they frequently do. So no, the children would not "inherit" or otherwise benefit in such cases where the proceeds of crime can be identified.
No immigrant legal or otherwise comes here solely for education. The prime pupose of any form of immigration is economic that it is to earn money. Therefore to claim that free education is a driver of immigration is a nonesense. The availability of work and money is the single reason most economic migrants go t a country.
Nor are immigrants illegal or otherwise criminals. They may have possibly committed offences (unlawful entry in to the UK) but until tried by a court of law they are innocent of any crime (basic standard of justice across all British legal systems). Their children of course cannot have committed an offence since they are brought here without consultation or say in the matter so to claim that they are criminals is also a nonsense.
Refugees are not immigrants they are refugees and very few will fail to claim asylum when they arrive since it is in their interest to claim as refugees in order to receive the few benefits that are available to them. They do not necessarily have to claim refugee status in the first safe country they come to, this has never been a requirement. There is also recognition in the charter that it may be impossible for refugees to seek refuge in some countries due to the volume of refugees and therefero it is always probable that some refugees will travel through many countries in an effort to escape persecution and possible death. Finally a refugee can never be deemed to be illegal (that is clearly set out in the 1951 convention).
The UK does have a right under EU law (but not for much longer) to return refugees to their country of entry to seek asylum and the associated paperwork. Once we leave the EU of course that right till probably disappear.
I don't believe you should be down voted but I do think you need to put down the Mail/Express and use the Internet for its greated purpose, the enlightment of closed minds and education for those things one does not know anything about.
"Refugees are not immigrants they are refugees and very few will fail to claim asylum when they arrive..."
What complete tosh. There are an estimated 1.1Million illegal immigrants in this country who have either never claimed asylum or who have had their claim rejected and done a runner.
Refugees are immigrants - genuine refugees are *legal* immigrants. I do not have an issue with them, it is the *illegal* immigrants that I take issue with.
"... I do think you need to put down the Mail/Express and use the Internet for its greated purpose, the enlightment of closed minds and education for those things one does not know anything about."
And that pretty much sums up the small minded view of people like yourself. I have a different view so I must be a closed minded Mail/Express reader? How pathetic. Not that it is any of your concern, but I do not read those "news" papers nor have I ever done so. If anyone has a closed mind, it is you, for believing that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be ignorant.
What complete tosh. There are an estimated 1.1Million illegal immigrants in this country who have either never claimed asylum or who have had their claim rejected and done a runner.
So to be clear there are an estimated 1.1 million people of whom a number may be failed asylum seekers, some who tried to use asylum to bypass legitimate routes of entry to the UK as economic migrants and the majority who are people who are simply economic migrants. There is no facts to support your statement that there are 1,1 million illegal immigrants. Those who claim asylum must do so on entering the UK's borders. As refugees seeking asylum they are have not entered the UK illegally so long as they meet the deadline for requesting asylum and the Convention on Refugees (to which the UK is a signatory) clearly states that refugees shall not be deemed to have entered a country ilegally. Refugees receive subsistence benefits until their case is heard but may be permitted to work after six months. estimated number of refugees is 117,234 refugees and number of applications in 2015 some 38,000.
Economic migrants who form the vast majority of both legitimate and unregistered migrants (and your 1.1 million) are not allowed to claim benefits, and would be foolish to do so as they would not be able to present the papework necessary to be able to make a valid claim. So they must receive income from elsewhere perhaps from exploitive employers who pay them less than the living wage, make them work 80+ hours a week and where they provide accommodation keep them in conditions that would be illegal for animals.
And that pretty much sums up the small minded view of people like yourself. I have a different view so I must be a closed minded Mail/Express reader? How pathetic. Not that it is any of your concern, but I do not read those "news" papers nor have I ever done so. If anyone has a closed mind, it is you, for believing that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be ignorant.
Actually it just shows the power of the right wing press in the UK that you can be found regurgitating the same falsehoods and bogus facts that papers like the Express and Mail publish daily. I have no problem with people having different views to mine, what I object to is people having views that they based on falsehoods and bogus or misinterpreted facts. 10 minutes on the Internet can give you a much better grasp of what the Convention on Refugees says, what the total number of refugees in the UK is and what the number of refugee applications is that the UK receives.
You can hold your views all I ask is that before you espouse them think of the consequences that result when people use statements that stereotype, continue discredited myths and falsehoods and maybe take the time to validate your views first to avoid errors. If you feel that they are validated then feel free to post them and have a conversation with the world.
People are killed because people don't check the facts or research a position.
This post has been deleted by its author
"But a refugee should seek asylum in the first safe country they come to"
Umm, have you seen the state of the finances and the economies of places like Greece, Italy, even Spain, the places those refugees are most likely to come to first? That's a massive problem that was all over the news a few months ago but seems to have dropped off the headlines recently. The problem hasn't magically gone away or been fixed yet. Also worth noting that the UK amongst many others are arguably responsible for causing at least some of those people to be refugees in the first place.
Also worth noting that illegal immigrants are not all refugees and not all refugees are illegal immigrants. It doesn't help when people in general and the press/media in particular conflate them either in error or to promote their own agenda.
Yet another remainer assuming everyone who voted Leave is a racist. The fact that so many remainers seem to think the only possible reason for wanting to change the relationship with EU is "blimmin Foriners!!!" says a lot more about them than it does about Leavers but I guess both sides has it's hard of thinking eh?
Most leavers I met aren't racist. They are lazy parrots who simply repeat the crap printed in so many right wing newspapers.
That fact that so many didn't even understand what Parliamentary Sovereignty means shows this as does the fact that a material number of them think the electorate is important.
"Risk register" -- schools flag up kids they suspect are in danger but usually nothing is done -- buck is passed amongst agencies and the system is overwhelmed anyway. The Gov't talk a good story, but schools are hostile environment because it has made them so.
Schools should be a "hostile environment"? Yeah, can't see how that could possibly go wrong.
If the goal is to reduce the number of people in Britain, then nice job, Home Office - because I and my children are staying right here, where people are mostly decent. That's three British citizens you've successfully driven out. Give yourselves a high five.
What the flying fuck do you think you know about "my 'agenda'"?
I know the majority of people I know in the UK are decent. But I also know that whenever public opinion is systematically tested on the subject - through a process called "elections", or more recently "a referendum" - the results are not consistent with my subjective impression. So, I conclude, my experience is not representative.
That's science. When the real measurement contradicts your eyeball impression, the more rigorous version is deemed to be correct.
It may well be that "a majority" of people in the UK are still "decent". But if so, those people need to get off their arses and make their voices heard, because right now they are rolling over and allowing the cunts to set the agenda.
And there you go again....
Wriggling and abusing because someone had the effrontery to disagree with you.
Your agenda, along with a good many remainers (which you may or may not be but I'll take that bet) is that if you voted leave then you are a racist and xenophobe and by extension not "decent" (by your definition) and that because the majority of those polled voted to leave they are therefore (again by *your* definition) no longer decent hence your clear implication that the majority of the UK is now no longer decent so based entirely upon your short initial post and confirmed by your rant I have a pretty good idea of your agenda.
"I know the majority of people I know in the UK are decent. But I also know that whenever public opinion is systematically tested on the subject - through a process called "elections", or more recently "a referendum" - the results are not consistent with my subjective impression."
So people who don't vote the way you want/expect them to are not decent... ok, good to know BUT if as you imply, you don't even live here anymore how would you know?
"That's science. When the real measurement contradicts your eyeball impression, the more rigorous version is deemed to be correct."
Ha ahhahahah hahah hahahha hahaha hahhha hahhha hahh hahhha hahhaha hahaha ... and breath.. hahahahhaha hahahahahaha hahahah ahahahaha... here's a clue for you... look up the word "subjective".
"It may well be that "a majority" of people in the UK are still "decent"."
;) but not by your standards eh?
Yep... hard of thinking is about right.I imagine you struggle to walk talk and breath all at the same time but then I guess knuckles dragging along the floor distract you.
And yes I'm aware of the irony but sometimes you *really* are left with no choice ;)
xx
To get the fat slobs that make up the lazy majority off their arses to do something they would have to stop coronation street.
Decent? Not a hope, they are just plain lazy and can be scared by a mean look (try getting a better representation of the people by something other than first past the post).
They are all too willing to believe the bull without question because it is easier than thinking, and the few that do think are scared to do anything because they know they will receive no support.
I wrote to my mp, he will do nothing, he never does. I am probably already on the watch list so I care not about adding myself again
"We take privacy extremely seriously and access to sensitive data is strictly controlled.”
Oh, that's all right then. I'm sure the government will take good care to make all that incredibly sensitive data secure. It might even be several months before the whole database is posted to the net by a hacker.
Remember kids, your teacher is there to spy on you for the government.
This is all pretty scary.
Ludwig von Mises had had something to say about that back in the 40s.
My kids attend a school where lunches are paid for by a fingerprint scanner. My kids have the public shame of using the alternative swipe card instead as I wouldn't let the school take their fingerprints.
How long will it be before this data is handed over as well? (if it's not already gone)
"lunches are paid for by a fingerprint scanner"
Those are insecure and spoofable. Subdermal vein scanners are more accurate (even identical twins have differing patterns) and they generate a non-reversible hash of the scan (which means that fingerprints aren't actually copiable on a file somwehere).
They're also more hygenic, as you don't need to touch them (which saves norovirus doing the rounds, amongst other nasties - does your school insist pupils wash their hands _after_ touching the scanner?(*))
The problem with swipe cards is that they're easy to lose or be stolen, but I'd take that risk to my kids going down with some nasty virus.
(*) A similar principle applies to bathroom doorhandles, given the number of people who don't wash hands after wiping their arses.
vein scanners... ever used one? The last time I tried it couldn't recognise my finger more than 2 out of 20 times at best. And that was with a 'cage' to ensure my finger was correctly in place (so yes, touching the system!)
Funnily enough it seemed to work better recognising a pork sausage... but actually only just
I say the same thing to Natwest, when they start asking me Security questions dating back to where I lived (and with whom) while I studied for my Degree.
I say, none of fcuking business and refuse to answer, stating that's over 6 years ago and that question pre-dates any date of data that should be stored on my credit file.
But, by asking these questions from over 6 years go, the data then gets 'recycled as new data' and is allowed to be stored longer than the original 6 years.
Targeting the school gates FFS. How low do they need to go? Next they'll be men in long trenchcoats handing out sweeties/cigarettes at the School gates, to kids for snitching on their 'foreign sounding' classmates. I really can't see its long before you need to show ID just to shop at dreary Tesco.
Of course they don't share Nationality, just another database table, of Anonymised Surnames linked to Nationality.
Rudd is a complete waste of resources herself, a mouthpiece of utter conjecture. She lives off the state herself. Department of Energy was left in utter chaos by her, doubt this will be any different. Billions wasted on Smart metering.
So much rich white collar crime goes unpunished, just look at Philip Green.
"It has evidently zero educational or funding purpose.."
False. If children of illegal immigrants are not paying taxes, then one purpose of this is properly funded education for the children of taxpayers. What benefit is YOUR child losing because the funds that YOU pay are being diluted to accommodate those who pay nothing?
We have the same effing issue in the states. Millions (yes millions) of illegals (and not just Mexican, although most of them come through that border) are in our school system, from primary through college. Every one who is enrolled and is not being properly paid for by taxes is taking from those who are.
Locally, we have an instance of an illegal student who is president of student body at a college. He is in the states illegally and boasted about how he had to attend 5 different high schools as a child because his parents were always evading immigration. Now he is trying to make the college a "sanctuary" college so he doesn't have to face the laws that he is breaking.
I ask this: What tax paying citizen was denied a place in that college because of his illegal activity? What primary aged child was denied a proper education because of overcrowded classes or a needed lunch or after school program because of the children who are in the country illegally who took their benefit?
I'm all for educating the masses, and no one wants to see a child suffer. It makes it better for everyone in the long run. But we can't ignore the issue because "Think of the children." It is a viscous cycle that 1st world countries with poor border control are in. The fix is securing the borders and actually deporting illegals when they are apprehended. It isn't an easy or cheap task, and will likely be distasteful in the short term, but it needs to be done or the problem will only get worse. Until then, its just honest working class people paying for those who abuse the system.
To start with, even as public-sector support for public schools is being diverted to for-profit organisations, post-secondary education gets precious little public funding in the United States. It is extremely unlikely that any "tax paying" child has lost a place at any school because of an illegal immigrant. Relatively few unis (particularly those likely to be frequented by the children of illegal aliens) have merit-based admissions.
More to the point, however: how much does it cost to find and remove one "illegal" child from the school system? Think of it as a kind of "customer acquisition cost" and ask yourself whether it's financially worthwhile to do this. If you were to take those funds and, instead, use them to support education itself, I suspect that most educators AND parents would be thrilled. Just imagine taking some of the billions being spent on "security" and instead spending that money -- dollar for dollar -- on improving the lives of people, rather than pretending to protect them from state-imagined bogeymen and lining the pockets of corporate cronies.
But that, of course, doesn't play nearly as well with the corporate interests that own the politicians.
I doubt it. TBH the % of pupils is small, to vanishing
There are more children of 'poor' families already unemployed or on very low incomes and anyway not paying taxes.
Perhaps the better route is to get the rich and corporations paying taxes at the same rates as the rest of us? (i.e. not declaring 2k profit on 200billion turnover).
Any how, it is not to do with protecting the masses or even the tax payers, it is about proving once again that those in power have total and utter insight and control in case you dare to think you might step out of line by thinking or questioning them.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"children are not in any way responsible for the crimes of their parents"
When parents commit crimes and have to pay for their crimes, it ALWAYS affects their children. No matter how much you wish it didnt.
You idiots are arguing that no criminal should be put in prison because their kids would be "punished" for their parents sins.
In that sense, then YES. Kids WILL suffer when parents commit crimes. THAT is why their parents are solely responsible for their own kids. Nobody else is.
@ retired.....
Are you drunk already on a Monday morning? Retired people have all the fun.
No one is suggesting criminals not be punished, or that their children are not affected by it. So whom, exactly, are you arguing with?
The issue at stake is whether we believe education is a basic human need for all children, regardless of their status. We need to swivel our perspective a couple of feet lower and see it from a child's point of view. Now do we think education should be freely available to all children?
For me it's quite simple. The population globally is heading for an age bomb (think Japan, but everywhere). If we don't educate what few little sprites we have, it is not going to end well.
Are there really no depths the UK government wont stoop to in order to spy on the citizens it is supposed to serve?
I feel like they want to know every ounce of every fart because they think they own me and I owe them everything instead of the OTHER WAY ROUND!
They are supposed to protect me ... yet they don't do that, there is no army, no navy, no airforce and the police are too busy looking for speeding fines and parking tickets to actually do any criminal investigation.
Instead they gather information about my children. WHY? Why the hell should they be gathering information about my children...the pretense about illegal immigrants is hog wash. No illegal is going to send their kids to a state school especially now - so the spying does NOTHING except perhaps scare a few people away from having their kids educated.
Worse than that we KNOW that the database will eventually be hacked, the communications compromised, or someone in a government office will deliberately share it. Eventually some group of obnoxious child molesters will get hold of the name, address, age and history of every child in the country so they can pick and choose which ones to go after in order to sell for sex (aka Bradford but on a much larger scale). One bad apple or one coding mistake is all it is going to take.
I already had a run in with Suffolk for sharing my sons information with an outside company without seeking my written permission (apparently they had sent out an opt out to the childrens pigeon holes... hardly a foolproof way of gaining parental approval).
How is it that the vast majority of the British public are so lazy, so damned arrogant that they continue to let this happen.