To be annoyed that immigration is the main issue for most people in EU debate?

[susanketty]

Whether you are 'in' or 'out', I'm getting tired of immigration being the main issue for people - sure, it will have an impact, but brexit is not going to solve any problems with immigration that people perceive, and immigration fears does not seem to be to me a good enough reason to vote out. And voting in is not going to necessarily lead to a rush of immigrants.

We are not in the Schengen area, we have border control, and EU immigrants make a net contribution to our economy. Brexiteers often say they would like a Norway-esque agreement, which seems to me like all the problems (i.e., free movement of people) with none of the advantages other than being in the trade area (which we are already).

I just think there is more to the debate than immigration and it seems to me like it's been pushed to the front of the agenda to push more people to vote out due to fear.

A hell of a lot must be coming in through heathrow because figures banded about of those entering in lorries as stow away is about 350 PER WEEK.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35807136

wow that was an old figure last I have seen was this

"In 2014, about 4,000 migrants were caught trying to get into the UK each month. By July 2015 that had gone up to almost 13,000"

woah - 13,000 each month

so extraordinary amount must be coming in through heathrow.

Id really like to see stats on how many illegal immigrants are coming through Heathrow though. Me too - though by definition it's hard to gather info. I assume the only way to do that is to travel on false documentation that is good enough to pass the passport check?

I think though hardly any got safely across the channel Statistics seem to suggest (agreed it's not an exact science) there's still quite a number. Security's been beefed up - but the ones that get through are the ones you can't see. C4 24 Hours in custody had an example not long ago - Police alerted to banging from the back of a lorry at Toddington Services. The cops on the ground said it was not unusual - but these are just the ones we know about - the rest disappear of course.

MotherofD migrationwatch has some estimates, though they come with a health warning. Top line - they think that if you include the children of illegal immigrants you might be looking at a figure of +/- 1 million, with a conservative estimate of 50k visa overstayers a year. Most visa overstayers will enter via Heathrow simply because that's where most flights from countries that require visas will arrive. There will be a smaller number via Gatwick and a tiny proportion via regional airports.

A few years ago migrationwatch estimated that illegal border crossing (people smuggling and other formers of illicit entry) might be 10k per annum. I'd put a lot of money on that figure having fallen.

about 4,000 migrants were caught trying to get into the UK each month. By July 2015 that had gone up to almost 13,000

Uh ... You're misreading this. They were caught. They didn't get in, because border controls were effective. The increase probably represents a combination of increased migrant flows to Northern France, and the beefing up security at calais and Dunkerque.

Illegal immigrants who enter through Heathrow invariably do so legally. They enter the UK on valid work or tourist visas, but don't go home. They become illegal migrants only at the point of visa expiry. And of course some "illegal immigrants" never crossed the border in the first place, as they were born in the UK.

wasonthelist re false passports. It's probably a tiny percentage of the total and with increased passport security (chips etc) no doubt getting harder. Probably some people travelling on stolen documents if they look similar enough, most of us don't look that much like our passport photos after all.

The point is that if your intention is to move somewhere without official permission, by far the easiest way is to simply get a visa and then not go home.

Immigration control in the UK should be "easy" compared with the task that faces countries with long land borders. But it's still hard. I think people seriously underestimate the task of improving "border control" post Brexit. If we leave the EU, then the people who may seek to enter on visas, and then overstay, are not arriving by the hundreds in planes via a couple of airports, like would be immigrants from the Indian subcontinent or asia - but in their thousands via ferry port, train and both regional and national airports (or by simply walking over the Irish border without so much as a passport check)

Misti I agree with all your points - I'd missed the significance of the legal entries overstaying via Heathrow of course. I think a lot of people have an overly simplistic view of this stuff as you say, and some people have unrealistic expectations - when debate was raging about ID cards, some people seemed to think they would magically stop all illegal immigration, fraud and crime, without stopping to consider how that might actually work in practical terms.

was and the numbers may well be underestimated - the 50k assumes that 99.5% of the approx 2m people who enter on visas or visa waivers each year go home when they should, which is probably optimistic.

The point is that

• immigration control is difficult and expensive
• increasing the pool of potential illegal immigrants by 500 million or so people (who live on your doorstep, not half a world away) will result in increased levels of illegal immigration
• you need credible proposals to keep them out (while maintaining access for tourists and business people) or to remove them if they overstay
• you need to work out how to pay for this and enforce it, given that there will be an incentive for natural government allies (businesses wanting to hire cheap labour) to try to get round regulations if they hit them in the pocket.

I actually don't have an issue with immigration being a reason people might vote leave - that's an individual choice. But it seems to me that these people are being lied to by both sides, one of which wishes to brush the issue under the carpet and one which wishes to pretend that it has a magic wand that will seal the borders on command.

Bottom line: successful economies attract migrants. Trash your economy and they'll fuck off ...

And once they are here, legally or not, this is the type of situation that makes me furious.

A one-legged Albanian double murderer posed as a Kosovan refugee.
He gets a 4 bed house, £2,000 a month benefits and an NHS prosthetic, as well as making a fortune selling cocaine.

Now he's won Legal Aid to fight to stay here, thanks to Human Rights Act. You couldn't make it up, could you.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3601689/Albanian-murderer-posed-Kosovan-refugee-gain-UK-citizenship-got-four-bed-house-benefits-dealing-cocaine-wins-legal-aid-fight-stay-proof-Britain-lost-marbles.html

It's worth pointing out that were Albania a member of the EU, he could be deported immediately under a European arrest warrant. The Brexiters don't like those either, so they appear to struggle with consistency.

he could be deported immediately

You can't deport anyone immediately.

Consistency.

The Brexiters don't like those either, so they appear to struggle with consistency. And this is where it all goes wrong - if someone on one side characterises everyone on the other side in a particular way. Why not argue about the issues rather than mudslinging?

I totally agree and worry people will make the wrong decision for the country soley based on this issue.

It's at this point in the conversation that I would like to remind people how much we pay for the privilege of being in the EU.

It wouldn't be so bad if membership was free, but it's not, it's around £160-180 million quid. A Week.

Yes the guy from Albania is a real asset. Why does he need a 4 bed house ?Why can't his wife work? Why do the immigrants often receive high quality spacious social housing.

Should not be allowed and he should be returned to Albania.

Remain at 60%+ today. As I've always called it - we will stay in . Thank goodness for sensible women.

Where did you see 60%?

The rolling average is in the 40's, and mostly has been for months

ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

Why would you care about rolling average? Are you doing a technical analysis of the graph?

I would care about the rolling average because any one survey of a couple of thousand people, out of a voter population of, say 40 million, will not be very reliable. You might get a strange result from any one survey. Maybe today there will be one that says 60% in, and tomorrow there might be one that says 60% out.

Have you seen the 60% survey? Where?

Was it this Telegraph one?

That's not what moving averages are used for, FYI.

They are by me!