Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
okaycuckoo

Disqualified Immigrants

Recommended Posts

How ******ed up are the Tories? They are a big state party obsessed with their view of Winners v Losers.

I understand people's objection to illegal immigration. Punishing people for employing illegal immigrants is one thing but this bizarre legislation not only punishes landlords for providing a roof over the heads of illegal immigrants but also deprives the immigrants of the right to any roof.

The Government has today published the Immigration Bill in the Commons. We have previously commented on this planned bill and we had been hoping that it might be quietly shelved or downgraded. However that appears not to be the case. From our point of view we are only interested in the housing related provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 3 (which start here) and I am not going to discuss the rest of the Bill.

Chapter 1 of Part is, as most of you will know, concerned with ensuring that private landlords have to do the Home Office's job for them. Sorry what I meant to say there was that the Bill is concerned ensuring that private landlords do not rent property to those who do not have leave to remain in the UK.

http://nearlylegal.c...9&utm_term=feed

The relevant legislation is here, s.15 onward:

Persons disqualified by immigration status not to be leased premises

(1) A landlord must not authorise an adult to occupy premises under a residential <br clear="none">tenancy agreement if the adult is disqualified as a result of their immigration <br clear="none">status.

(2) There is a contravention of this section in either of the following cases ...

http://www.publicati...140110_en_3.htm

I'd like to see these ****-suckers start with their non-dom immigrant buddies and multi-national tax dodgers. They can work their way down from there.

Edited by okaycuckoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without getting into an argument about politics, I fail to see what is wrong with a policy that affects only those who shouldn't be there anyway. Perhaps it would also free up a few properties or reduce rents for those who legally are here and need shelter. Who could lose? Only landlords.

Illegals and overstayers could always hand themselves in to the authorities and get free shelter in an immigration centre before getting a nice free dry plane back to whence they came.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without getting into an argument about politics, I fail to see what is wrong with a policy that affects only those who shouldn't be there anyway. Perhaps it would also free up a few properties or reduce rents for those who legally are here and need shelter. Who could lose? Only landlords.

Illegals and overstayers could always hand themselves in to the authorities and get free shelter in an immigration centre before getting a nice free dry plane back to whence they came.

must say that I agree with you.

Chancers take their chances.

Homes for refugees, provided they haven't passed through other countries first.

The day I can go and work and live anywhere in the world illegally will be the day I don't mind anyone coming here - the way the UK is going they will be welcome to it; although I'll miss the natural habitats.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tenant is legal immigrant. Illegal immigrant relatives live with him. He doesn't even have to actually live there himself. No law broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How ******ed up are the Tories? They are a big state party obsessed with their view of Winners v Losers.

I understand people's objection to illegal immigration. Punishing people for employing illegal immigrants is one thing but this bizarre legislation not only punishes landlords for providing a roof over the heads of illegal immigrants but also deprives the immigrants of the right to any roof.

On the face of it I share your sentiment, but I feel like the UK is like a lifeboat from the Titanic. You desperately want to help and let more and more people on, but you know ultimately it's going to sink and you'll all be fcked. Asylum seekers my heart goes out to, legal immigrants come on board, but illegals, no.

I'd be ok with it If the Canadian Embassy told me that my refused application was all a mistake, and despite not having enough money in the bank, the right qualifications and any skills of use them, I'm welcome in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should imagine the kind of slumlord packing them in 4 + to a room and demanding rent in cash, I.e. not paying tax either will take no notice and carry on as before. This sort of LL will never take any notice of any rules or regs and IMO it's naive to think they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without getting into an argument about politics, I fail to see what is wrong with a policy that affects only those who shouldn't be there anyway. Perhaps it would also free up a few properties or reduce rents for those who legally are here and need shelter. Who could lose? Only landlords.

Illegals and overstayers could always hand themselves in to the authorities and get free shelter in an immigration centre before getting a nice free dry plane back to whence they came.

I look at it from a different angle.

An owner and tenant should be free to transact regardless of their personal qualification. They are, after all, human beings. If one has a systematic and unfair advantage over the other, I have no problem with the state interfering to strike a reasonable and democratic balance.

What the state is doing here is destroying the transaction and placing the entire burden onto an individual, including the expense of the bureaucracy that's inherent in the state's promise (funded by tax) to maintain the borders,

I don't expect this to reach the statute books. It's just more Daily Mail froth from the witless Theresa May and the swivel-eyed wing of a party that is NOT conservative. They keep banging on about Hayek, when Mussolini is their real poster boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont we just have a market based immigration policy? I read of some pakistani paying for some slovakian sex slave to marry him the other day as she was an EU citizen....£6k the dirty bugger paid! Ive read similar stories of others, invariably pakistanis 'marrying' eastern european girls paying up to £20k for this 'service'

That could be HMRC's money!

If we're worried about overpopulation maybe directly transfer the money paid for people to enter for other people to leave.

Obviously UK citizenship is a valuable good, we should stop giving it away for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How ******ed up are the Tories? They are a big state party obsessed with their view of Winners v Losers.

I understand people's objection to illegal immigration. Punishing people for employing illegal immigrants is one thing but this bizarre legislation not only punishes landlords for providing a roof over the heads of illegal immigrants but also deprives the immigrants of the right to any roof.

http://nearlylegal.c...9&utm_term=feed

The relevant legislation is here, s.15 onward:

Persons disqualified by immigration status not to be leased premises

(1) A landlord must not authorise an adult to occupy premises under a residential <br clear="none">tenancy agreement if the adult is disqualified as a result of their immigration <br clear="none">status.

(2) There is a contravention of this section in either of the following cases ...

http://www.publicati...140110_en_3.htm

I'd like to see these ****-suckers start with their non-dom immigrant buddies and multi-national tax dodgers. They can work their way down from there.

They most likely had a roof over there head before they sneaked into this country, they have a right to go back, I watched a program on the increase in the homeless in London and the first person they interviewed on the street was a eastern European who had no work had no right to benefits and would still rather sleep on the streets of London, WHY

I dont understand were you are coming from.

No right to rent, TO TRUE

It is to easy for failed Asylum seekers to disappear in this country while waiting deportation, SOMEONE IS HELPING THEM.

Edited by awaytogo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problems start when ordinary UK Citizens without a passport or driving license would like to rent a place.

I know somebody with zero documents. All got lost in a house move and not replaced.

It's so hard to go through the process of obtaining copies that they haven't bothered. I occasionally try to push them to start getting something, because I can see the problems this is likely to cause, but they're not keen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without getting into an argument about politics, I fail to see what is wrong with a policy that affects only those who shouldn't be there anyway. Perhaps it would also free up a few properties or reduce rents for those who legally are here and need shelter. Who could lose? Only landlords.

Illegals and overstayers could always hand themselves in to the authorities and get free shelter in an immigration centre before getting a nice free dry plane back to whence they came.

They should not be here, but the way I see it it victimizes those who come here for a better life, rather than those who benefit from that desire.

Such a law would simply push the illegal immigrants into worse accommodation, that is even more rachman like than currently.

The answer to stopping illegal immigration is quite simple - impose tough penalties on any employer of illegal immigrants with a series of escalating fines, and make sure those fines are rigorously enforced. If the fines are not paid bar the business owner from running another business until they are, and if they break that law then send them to prison.

Illegal immigration would stop in a heartbeat as without employment there would be no reason to come to the UK. No government would do this however as it would offend the business interests that makes use of these immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at it from a different angle.

An owner and tenant should be free to transact regardless of their personal qualification. They are, after all, human beings. If one has a systematic and unfair advantage over the other, I have no problem with the state interfering to strike a reasonable and democratic balance.

There is no land market without the state. Landlords are the state, and have been for at least a thousand years, so there is no sense in which you can be an owner or a tenant and yet be free from state intervention.

What the state is doing here is destroying the transaction and placing the entire burden onto an individual, including the expense of the bureaucracy that's inherent in the state's promise (funded by tax) to maintain the borders,

Landlords already decide who lives where. The government is enforcing some democratic oversight of this power, and that can't be any worse that what we have now.

I don't expect this to reach the statute books. It's just more Daily Mail froth from the witless Theresa May and the swivel-eyed wing of a party that is NOT conservative. They keep banging on about Hayek, when Mussolini is their real poster boy.

Why I am not a conservative - F.A. Hayek

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are

recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to

be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others...

...While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and

wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no

respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other

coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic

change.

... the conservative opposition to too much government control is not a matter of

principle but is concerned with the particular aims of government is clearly shown in the

economic sphere...

...Indeed, though the restrictions which exist today in industry and

commerce are mainly the result of socialist views, the equally important restrictions in

agriculture were usually introduced by conservatives at an even earlier date. And in their

efforts to discredit free enterprise many conservative leaders have vied with the

socialists.[9]

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not taking sides about who should be here or who should not, should they stay or should they go......only what I feel uncomfortable with is the authorities passing of the buck, making normal law abiding citizens to effectively police for people who are paid to do a job that don't do it correctly.....if we do not know who is in the country because we do not monitor who comes in and who goes out when their visa expires, and all relevance public services that come in contact with people without ID only release them back into the community again anyway......there are thousands of forged documents and ID about, there are thousands of UK citizens without a passport or driving licence.

Bit like child abuse....pass suspicions onto the authorities, who can be certain it will be followed up, who can be certain that an a abused child is not removed from an abusive household.....just saying. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know somebody with zero documents. All got lost in a house move and not replaced.

It's so hard to go through the process of obtaining copies that they haven't bothered. I occasionally try to push them to start getting something, because I can see the problems this is likely to cause, but they're not keen.

Is it all that hard? I don't know that it's very difficult to get a replacement birth or marriage certificate. I lost a passport once and thought it would be a real pain to get a replacement, but it was no great problem.

A colleague who had never had a passport or a driving licence had a lot of trouble with banks etc. when she was acting as executor for an uncle, but she is a pretty stroppy type (in the nicest possible way) and refused to get either just to tick their boxes. As she rightly pointed out, it is not a legal requirement to possess either and therefore they had no right to insist.

When she finally decided to get a passport (for travel not for box-ticking) she was told she may well be called for interview. Cue a lot more stroppy bristling. However they didn't call her in the end - it was no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not taking sides about who should be here or who should not, should they stay or should they go......only what I feel uncomfortable with is the authorities passing of the buck, making normal law abiding citizens to effectively police for people who are paid to do a job that don't do it correctly.....if we do not know who is in the country because we do not monitor who comes in and who goes out when their visa expires, and all relevance public services that come in contact with people without ID only release them back into the community again anyway......there are thousands of forged documents and ID about, there are thousands of UK citizens without a passport or driving licence.

Bit like child abuse....pass suspicions onto the authorities, who can be certain it will be followed up, who can be certain that an a abused child is not removed from an abusive household.....just saying. ;)

Agree absolutely about passing the buck. They need to know who is coming in and out before expecting others to do their job for them. Other countries manage it FGS. Daughter knew a Dutch bloke when she was in Oz - a year or so after leaving he went back for a holiday and was refused entry because of an unpaid speeding fine over a year previously. It was on their system and he just had to return on the next plane. Expensive lesson. Ok, it's probably easier for a country like Australia, but that's no reason to give up completely.

I know of a bloke who deliberately ran up over £20k of debt before selling his flat and going abroad (he was not native to UK) with all the money. (A lot since he had bought it many years previously). Yet I bet he would have been able to return whenever he liked, no problem.

We are just too soft and daft in this country.

Edited by Mrs Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not taking sides about who should be here or who should not, should they stay or should they go......only what I feel uncomfortable with is the authorities passing of the buck, making normal law abiding citizens to effectively police for people who are paid to do a job that don't do it correctly.....if we do not know who is in the country because we do not monitor who comes in and who goes out when their visa expires, and all relevance public services that come in contact with people without ID only release them back into the community again anyway......there are thousands of forged documents and ID about, there are thousands of UK citizens without a passport or driving licence.

Bit like child abuse....pass suspicions onto the authorities, who can be certain it will be followed up, who can be certain that an a abused child is not removed from an abusive household.....just saying. ;)

While shifting responsibility for 'failure' may have been going on long before, I think I detected a marked shift in its extent following the BSE crisis.

The media's power seemed to come to the fore at this time and politicians awoke to the fact that the public would be made to hold them to account.

From then on it seemed there developed a greater amount of planning for "how can we protect ourselves against being held responsible for failure" by having groups or bodies set up for 'Shifting the focus of blame to someone else". Science particulalrly took a hit after the BSE crisis, which was never a fault of 'science', but rather its application.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landlords are not 'normal law abiding citizens' any more than a police officer or the Mayor of London.

This is how I feel. In post 15 it was suggested that employers should be held responsible for employing illegal immigrants - so why not landlords for housing them ?

Are we saying that being a landlord is an ordinary citizen's role ? Surely the provision of accommodation is a professional business transaction - or should be seen that way.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While shifting responsibility for 'failure' may have been going on long before, I think I detected a marked shift in its extent following the BSE crisis.

The media's power seemed to come to the fore at this time and politicians awoke to the fact that the public would be made to hold them to account.

From then on it seemed there developed a greater amount of planning for "how can we protect ourselves against being held responsible for failure" by having groups or bodies set up for 'Shifting the focus of blame to someone else". Science particulalrly took a hit after the BSE crisis, which was never a fault of 'science', but rather its application.

I fear that when large swathes of people see themselves as having less than they should have, they start proportioning blame on others for the situation they find themselves in....the state is only encouraging this, by asking neighbour to snitch on neighbour....protectionism and self preservation, resentment of others, entitlements and falling global humanitarianism.....this will not turn out sweet. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As already mentioned, the sheds in beds fiasco is the reason for this. The councils will at last have a decent tool to deal with this issue.

If it ever comes into force I can't see many LL being fined as the legal ones already do checks for their own financial well being.

I don't see many fines being enforced for employing ill-legals so wouldn't expect many legal LL to be affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be ok with it If the Canadian Embassy told me that my refused application was all a mistake, and despite not having enough money in the bank, the right qualifications and any skills of use them, I'm welcome in anyway.

You should buy a leaky old fishing boat and cross the atlantic and pitch up at Nova Scrotia asking for asylum. Tell them you are from Russia or somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not taking sides about who should be here or who should not, should they stay or should they go......only what I feel uncomfortable with is the authorities passing of the buck, making normal law abiding citizens to effectively police for people who are paid to do a job that don't do it correctly.....if we do not know who is in the country because we do not monitor who comes in and who goes out when their visa expires, and all relevance public services that come in contact with people without ID only release them back into the community again anyway......there are thousands of forged documents and ID about, there are thousands of UK citizens without a passport or driving licence.

Bit like child abuse....pass suspicions onto the authorities, who can be certain it will be followed up, who can be certain that an a abused child is not removed from an abusive household.....just saying. ;)

Do you think the people who are NOW housing and benefiting from doing so,are going to report them or throw them out,

THEY MAY DO NOW.

People are housing these people who should not be here, and a lot know they are.

Edited by awaytogo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   219 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.