Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35944171)

Correct me if I'm just being thick here but...

The Windrush immigrants were invited over here to work therefore they would have been issued a National Insurance number which is traceable the same with tax records.

Add to that any spouse/child who sought medical services would a medical record linked to a medical number issued.

What am I missing???

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35944186)

It’s not about NI Numbers, it’s about eligibility to be employed - when you apply for jobs nowadays, they all have to check you have the right to work in this country, for instance by being a UK citizen, and you have to provide a passport (which gets photocopied when you go for an interview).

If you haven’t got a passport, that rules you out.

https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35944186)

It’s not about NI Numbers, it’s about eligibility to be employed - when you apply for jobs nowadays, they all have to check you have the right to work in this country, for instance by being a UK citizen, and you have to provide a passport (which gets photocopied when you go for an interview).

If you haven’t got a passport, that rules you out.

https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35944237)

It wouldn't have been too difficult to change your name anyway to fit any documents (and then back again if desired).

All perfectly legal unless done for fraudulent purposes:

https://www.gov.uk/change-name-deed-...ith-the-courts

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35944119)

Well, there's a turnup for the books! According to BBC News, at a heated exchange at PM's Questions, Theresa May responded that the destruction of the Windrush records took place under Labour's watch in 2009.

I bet JC wishes he had never asked! Egg on face for Lammy, too, after his outburst in the House of Commons!

So much for 'caring' Labour. It's now confirmed by the man himself that it was Labour that had proved to be 'callous and incompetent'!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43806710

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35944243)

Both were 'callous and incompetent' IMO.



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...lbert-thompson

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35944253)

Quote:
The onus is on individuals to prove they were resident in the UK before 1 January 1973, the date the 1971 Immigration Act came into force. However, a key clause from 1999 legislation, which had provided longstanding Commonwealth residents with protection from enforced removal, was deleted from the 2014 Immigration Act. The government did not announce the removal of this clause, nor did it consult on the potential ramifications.

THIS is the bigger problem, nevermind LAB & CON squabbling about who did what. THIS is the issue, and it's a worrying one,. it shows a lack of due diligence and transparency on all sides.

With legislation like that slipping in, we're all farked. Where else has stuff been quietly erased...

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35944253)

Quote:
The onus is on individuals to prove they were resident in the UK before 1 January 1973, the date the 1971 Immigration Act came into force. However, a key clause from 1999 legislation, which had provided longstanding Commonwealth residents with protection from enforced removal, was deleted from the 2014 Immigration Act. The government did not announce the removal of this clause, nor did it consult on the potential ramifications.


THIS is the bigger problem, nevermind LAB & CON squabbling about who did what. THIS is the issue, and it's a worrying one,. it shows a lack of due diligence and transparency on all sides.

With legislation like that slipping in, we're all farked. Where else has stuff been quietly erased...

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35944258)

So the changes only affected whether you could be deported if you couldn't prove a right to remain, not a right to NHS care, jobs, housing etc. All of those issues would remain without any of the 1999 changes(whatever they were).

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35944260)

It seems like there are two problems with the 2014 immigration act.

One of those was the removal of protection for commonwealth citizens which it seems was already identified as an issue back in 1999.

But it's also this 'hostile environment' act which turns everyone into immigration police. This is less of a problem for clearly illegal immigrants but it turns out there is another category of people for whom the answer to their legal status is complicated. These are people who the act wasn't intended to target, who no-one has a problem with, but nonetheless do not have the full legal status and don't have the documentation required. The changes, as well as removing their protection, has forced every state entity, landlords and employers to flag them up and so they find themselves out of work, unable to access healthcare and even at risk of deportation!

It's hard to prove nationality especially if you don't have a United States style law where being born in the country makes you a national of it automatically.

---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 ----------



The 2014 act is what made these people need to get documentation without respect for long term residency i.e windrush.

Basically these people went around their entire lives thinking, rightly, they were here legally. In 2014 not only was this assumption overturned but also caught them in a situation where the NHS, landlords, employers and more would demand they prove something they have heithro not been required to prove and set very high standards to do so.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35944268)

If the NHS, landlords, employers, etc didn't do the checks everybody would have to wait for the results of a central government check. How many weeks/months would that take?

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 35944278)

Surely it should be about as long as it takes someone to check my Driving Licence for points or disqualifications i.e. no time at all.