1st problem : monitoring

2nd problem : detection

3rd problem : evidence

4th problem : legal process

You haven't given a example of a EU citizen legally deported from the UK.

Can you give an example from any other EU country?

I gave you an example which you now wish to ignore.

Do your own homework.

However, we agree that if the government cannot be bothered to make checks, they cannot enforce.

The search took 30 seconds

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25419423

Your example is a voluntary 'reconnection' not an enforced 'deportation' - you've given me no choice but to disregard it.

It's not the fault of the or any government. It's just one of those law's which always be problamatic for a number of reasons.

No fault or finger pointing. It is what it is.

You missed my edit. I did your homework for you.

Sorry kidspud but it's not clear if these deportations occurred after 1.1.14 when Romania's restrictions were lifted. It's unlikely if the article was written in Feb 14.

These actions that the French took were very much in the news at that time - not as much afterwards.

According to UKVI the criteria for self sufficiency is ...
"The EEA national must be able to show evidence that they have sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social assistance system and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover. There is no fixed amount that is regarded as ‘sufficient resources’. The personal situation of each applicant must be taken into account".

Your example of a street beggar who sofa surfs is unlikely to met that criteria. However, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for returning him to his country of origin and in practice it would be pointless since he would be entitled to return immediately and remain for at least three months.

Really? On what basis would an EEA citizen be refused entry to the UK (assuming they don't meet the criteria for being refused under public health rules or because they present a serious threat to society)?

First it seems odd that you have ignored one of the criteria and second, they can be removed (as was already shown) if they do not meet the definition of FoM.

It really isn't that difficult.

The last paragraph of the article answers your question. I assume you read it.

So ask me a British citizen resident in Cyprus (an EU country) why I have an Alien Registration Certificate?

Ask me how I qualified for it.

Google MEU1 + Cyprus

Or continue making assumptions.

I did read it and I accept the intention however it doesnt constitute am example.

No, of course it doesn't

Can you explain

1) What criterion I have ignored

2) What you mean by "the definition of FoM"?

It all already been mentioned in this thread, and examples have been given.

That's another misconception.

We are not in Schengen. Everyone, including British & EU citizens, has their passport scanned on entering the UK via legal methods.

The UK border force can refuse entry to anyone (with good reason). It is entirely at their discretion.
If someone has been previously deported, the UK border force can deem the same person to be a public nuisance and deny them entry.


See: Section 7
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...6/section3.pdf


"7. Refusal of admission on grounds of public policy, public health and public security

If it is likely that a person convicted of a crime will reoffend this may justify a public policy decision"


Said person can then appeal, if they wish, and the case will be heard in a UK court of law.
I've not seen any appeal cases where the UK courts have overruled the UK border force.

In theory, in the said case example, they could be charged under the Vagrancy Act, deemed as a potential public nuisance who is likely to reoffend (if they return), which would then give the border force a reason to refuse re-entry.


Yes, the law does usually just cover serious criminals (muderers, rapists, terrorists, drug smugglers, etc), who are now all refused entry (or arrested, if there's a warrant out) - ever since we've had full access to the Schengen II database, Europol database and European Arrest Warrant, but discretion lies with the UK Border Force and Courts...
https://fullfact.org/europe/border-security-eu/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-leave-claims

Nonsense

There are no criminal records checks,no health checks and no background checks for Europeans
Try getting into Canada,Australia of the USA where these things are part of the sensible,sane,regulated immigration process !

Just cut to the chase and admit that what you really want is the freedom to cherry-pick and do a bit of ethnic cleansing.

Just because the checks aren't the ones you want doesn't mean checks aren't made.


BiB is a check.


BiB also a description of a check.

Each EU country can implement checks they wish. The UK seem to implement the least stringent. That would be a sovereign decision it would seem.


So the ball is already in the UK's court.

Everyone coming into the UK has their passport scanned, including British & EU citizens.

The UK border force has the right to deny entry to criminals coming from the EU, and does....
which you'd know if you'd read and followed the links in the post directly above yours

In most EU countries, all citizens - be they domestic, EU or third country - must formally register with local authorities (much as we do on a less formalised basis for Council tax etc). At that point of registration, such checks are usually performed automatically and - if needed - EU or third country citizens are given local tax numbers/social security numbers from which all taxes paid can be traced and any subsequent claims for welfare can be back-checked to ensure the claimant is there long enough to qualify for receipt of payments.

We have been perfectly free, and continue to be free, under EU law to implement such a system for the last 43 years here in the U.K. but have chosen not to do so. That's not an "EU issue" though but a domestic one and one that leaving the EU won't solve [i]per se[/i\ since it would mean Parliament adopting a radically different approach to the one it has had for decades.

There is a difference between London the economic centre and those resident in Londoners who had votes on 23 June. Much of the wealth is generated by people who don't live there and commute in or are based abroad. Spending on public transport infrastructure for example is massively higher than anywhere else in the UK.

Are all those Londoners on housing benefit - 30 per cent of the City - really all net contributors?

Well there's a shock - the CTA isn't set in stone:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live

Q: Irish citizens have the same rights to come to the UK as Commonwealth citizens. Will that continue?

Mays says she wants to look at these issues of how we treat people from other EU countries early in the talks.

Up until now there was seemingly no doubt that Irish people would be exempt from any changes under Brexit. Another aspect of Project Fear looks like more like reality.

If its unreasonable wanting/expecting security,health and background checks for immigrants,then the rest of the sensible immigration policy world must be very unreasonable.
This thread has become pointless,too many people are determined to uphold "equality" to the point of insanity.

No sensible country needs the unhealthy,criminals,unskilled,poor from another country.
But people still try to defend this madness.

I expect the majority who live there, work there. Whether they are net contributors or not (which ever country they come from is immaterial ), they are there to service the huge machine which is London.

I actually find the net contribution argument a bit odd because I didn't know this country was in the business of ostracising someone based on the tax they paid.

Should we do that for everyone?

People don't necessarily defend it.
They just point it out when others make exaggerated/inaccurate claims about it.

Who told you or why do you think there are no criminal checks made for EU citizens entering the UK?
I can assure you, every passport is scanned, and criminals are denied entry or arrested if a warrant exists.

Who told you that we allow "the poor" from other countries to stay here?
How did they afford to get here in the first place?

Who hires the unskilled? Are the unskilled from other countries to blame if UK employment agencies are allowed to recruit them en-masse directly, under ZHCs or apprenticeship wages, or are the employers or UK government to blame?

I've already pointed out the pros and cons of free movement of workers in a previous post, but reforms are pointless now that we're leaving.