Number of Calais Illegals Triples in 5 Years

Several interesting stories today about the illegal immigrants trying to get into Britain, and those already here.

Firstly, it has been reported that whilst in 2004 border officials detected 7,540 stowaways, last year, the total was 19,399.

The rise is attributed in part to the illegal camps in the woods around Calais, which the French authorities seem to generally tolerate. Their only solution is that Britain might just like to join Schengen and let all of these individuals in.

If more than 50 illegals a day are being caught trying to sneak into Britain, it does rather beg the question of how many actually succeed.

We don't really know how many succeed in arriving here - but we do have a fair idea of what happens when they do - they stay, generally even if ordered to leave.

From the Mail:

A £1million Government scheme to help failed asylum seekers and their children return home resulted in just one family leaving the UK, it has been revealed.

A scathing report from the Children's Society says the initiative, which ran for less than a year, failed because government officials did not seem to know what it was for or how to run it.

The project in Kent was an attempt to reduce the numbers of children being locked up in immigration removal centres after their parents' asylum claims failed.

Families waiting to be returned to their home countries would not be locked up but instead would stay at an open residential unit while their children went to school.

A centre run by the charity Migrant Helpline was supposed to process 260 families in a year but in reality it dealt with only 13, only one of which was returned to its native country.

'They were given initially seven days to sell all their possessions, take the decision to leave their homes, take their children out of school and move to a centre that they knew very little about,' she said.

'They arrived in a very confused state, unable to engage with the charity that was running the pilot. Many of these families couldn't even go home, because they had outstanding asylum claims and so couldn't be removed from the country legally.'

Keith Vaz, someone who definitely knows a thing or two about getting a British passport, admitted the scheme was a flop, but for different reasons:

'There were good intentions, but the intervention happened too late. After you have been sat waiting for your case to be dealt with in a very long queue over a number of years, the last thing you want to do, the last thing you want to happen, is for someone to help you to leave.

'The real problem we have in dealing with these cases is the huge backlog that is still with us. It has gone down in the last 12 years, but it is still there.'

Yes - and with the number attempting to arrive increasing threefold, it is not going away any time soon, a bit like the nonsensical idea that it can be 'illegal' for the British government to remove non-citizens from this country if it so wishes.

Who knows who is sneaking over the border? Take this case - an Afghan warlord who had fought for a banned group against British troops entered this country illegally in 2006 and has lived off us since.

Finally, he has had his appeal turned down and been ordered to leave:

An Afghan asylum seeker in Glasgow who fought against Nato-led forces in his homeland has lost his appeal against deportation from the UK.

Dawalat Khan Nasir, 34, was a former commander with the banned Islamist group Herzb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (Hig).

He entered the UK illegally in 2006 and claimed asylum on the grounds he was at risk of persecution in Afghanistan.

Judges at the Court of Session said his past meant he could not be shielded by human rights legislation.

The court heard that Nasir took part in attacks against the Nato-led mission in Afghanistan.

He took over his father's role as commander in Hig - a mujahideen group founded by former Afghan prime minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar - when he was killed as the Americans moved in to overthrow the Taliban.

Nasir used Hig money to fund his departure from Afghanistan and fled by plane and lorry before entering Britain illegally in July 2006.

He made an application for asylum claiming that since childhood he had been involved with Hig - a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK.

In October last year, Nasir, who has been living at a flat in Glasgow, was told by the Home Office that his asylum application had been rejected.

He challenged the decision but his case was rejected by a senior immigration judge.

His case came before the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Tuesday, which upheld the decision to deport him.

Nasir had claimed there was insufficient evidence of his participation in Hig acts which were contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that he should be afforded protection under human rights legislation and the Geneva Convention.

But Lord Hardie, who heard the case with Lord Reed and Lord Carloway, concluded that he was aware of Hig activities and aims and was excluded from the convention's protection.

Lord Hardie said: "At the time of his father's death the applicant was actively participating in the acts of Hig, including attacks against the International Security Assistance Force.

"He must have been aware at that time of the aims, methods and activities of Hig.

"Thereafter he became a commander in Hig and was involved in the planning of acts, including issuing orders to obtain guns.

"As a result of his involvement with Hig the applicant is excluded from the protection of the Geneva Convention."

Yeah - and the best thing is, all of that was on the British taxpayer. If Hitler had turned up here in May 1945 and claimed asylum, would it have taken three years of legal wrangling at our expense to decide we didn't want him?

If the answer to that question is obvious, or the question itself even seems absurd, then isn't that an answer in itself?

The case of this warlord proves that the protection and integrity of our borders is vital to our safety. This is obvious to most people, but obviously some are shielded from reality by their expenses claims.

I really don't see the point in young British men and women dying in Afghanistan whilst their former opponents sit in Scottish council flats.