Illegal Entrants Research Articles

Border Research, Border Gestures: The Transborder Immigrant Tool

Border Research, Border Gestures:The Transborder Immigrant Tool Ricardo Dominguez (bio) The Tijuana–San Diego border has always been a site for staging military research. From 1968 until 1973, the US military spent close to one billion dollars a year on a new research program intended to end the war in Vietnam by establishing a computerized border field of networked sensors called Operation Igloo White. Igloo White was funded by ARPA (now DARPA), the Defense Department's edge technology sector, and the research was done by forty-five scientists from Research I US universities called "the Jasons" (after Jason and the Argonauts). The Jasons would gather every summer in La Jolla, California, where the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), is located. While the project failed to end the Vietnam War with its virtual fence, and was never able to capture the movement of North Vietnamese soldiers crossing into South Vietnam, Operation Igloo White and its technologies were teleported to the US in the early 1970s, where they rapidly staged technologically driven actions against drug cartels, smugglers, and most specifically, immigrants crossing the border from Mexico. This history echoes a number of the issues around the Trumpian border now, with its symbolic wall and his administration's more direct amplification of US racist immigration policies without any ethical boundaries. Meanwhile, a wider call for supporting a smart fence or virtual fence, rather than the above, has gained favor again, and no doubt both systems will fail again while the desert will continue to be used to kill people the old-fashioned way. In 1993 Sandia National Labs became a hired gun for the national vision of an expanded reborderization project. Sandia was originally a military research facility named Z Division in 1945, a weapon-testing arm of Los Alamos National Laboratory. In 1991 it was commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to assess US–Mexico border enforcement efforts because it was considered an expert in designing high-end physical security systems. In 1993 it issued a report titled Systematic Analysis of the Southwest Border, recommending a shift from "interdiction" policies to a new anticipatory strategy of "prevention through deterrence." These recommendations were then [End Page 1053] implemented with the launch of Operation Blockade (1993) and Gatekeeper (1994). The new virtual border would allow it to "effectively apprehend and … track … illegal entrants."1 Furthermore, the physical environment itself was mobilized as a tool of border enforcement. Believing that crackdowns in populated areas would reroute arrivals into "hostile terrain, less suited for crossing and more suited for enforcement," and that natural barriers, whether rivers, mountains, or vast tracts of the Sonora Desert, would amplify the difficulty of crossing and deter future transgressions, former US Immigration and Naturalization Service director Doris Meissner claimed that if urban areas could be effectively controlled, "geography would do the rest."2 Like Operation Igloo White, Meissner called for an augmentation of "technological resources" that would teleport the border into the twenty-first century. In 1995 the Border Research and Technology Center (BRTC), operated by Sandia National Laboratories, was opened in San Diego. BRTC works with Homeland Security, the US Customs Service and Border Patrol, the US Attorney offices, and law enforcement agencies to strengthen technological capabilities and awareness on US borders. BRTC also works on joint ventures to identify technologies that will stop the flow of undocumented people crossing the Mexico–US border and has also been participating in a project to detect the heartbeats of people concealed in vehicles or other containers. The US–Mexico border regime used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to shift US Border Patrol from the Department of Justice to the new hyperpolicing structure of Homeland Security. With this switch, the acceleration of border control technology dependence and border wall reinforcement continued to echo Sandia's 1993 recommendations, but with some core differences: border enforcement would no longer be framed as a War on Drugs but instead as part of the War on Terrorism and was (re)branded as "prevention through deterrence" and as "defense-in-depth."3 This extended the US border inland by fifty to one hundred miles, and it also reached to the...

A Pioneer among the South Korean Atomic Bomb Victims: Significance of the Son Jin-doo Trial

This article focuses on a seven-year legal battle initiated against the Japanese government in the 1970s by a South Korean illegal entrant and its historical significance. Son Jin-doo, a victim of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, demanded the Korean hibakusha receive the same medical and legal rights that the Japanese hibakusha had been granted since 1957. His legal case contributed to bringing Japan`s long-forgotten colonial past to the surface and raised the question of why many Koreans resided in Japan during the colonial era. Additionally, the trials revealed the different legal statuses of Japanese hibakusha and overseas hibakusha. Son Jin-doo was a pioneer in asserting the rights of the latter and raised consciousness about the abandonment of the Korean A-bomb survivors.

“Who Are You?”: The Making of Korean “Illegal Entrants” in Occupied Japan 1945–1952

Recent progress in the study of migration history in Japan has cast new light on the influx of Koreans to Japan just after the end of the Second World War in August 1945. Both the Japanese Government and the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers called this migration illegal entry or smuggling, and tried to suppress it., One important question remains to be solved about this migration; namely; how was it prohibited? Before the Immigration Control Act (1951) was enshrined, and at a time when Koreans in Japan still held Japanese citizenship, how were the authorities able to regard Korean migration to Japan illegal? How did this migration became a political and social problem? Focusing on the legislation process and performance of the law, this article attempts to answer these questions. Politics, legislation, and social interaction all contributed to making the ethnic and legal category of Korean in postwar Japan.

How voluntary are voluntary returns?

‘Voluntary returns’ for rejected asylum seekers, foreign national prisoners, illegal entrants and overstayers are increasingly being promoted by European governments without due regard for the safety and preparedness of the returnee. In addition, the voluntariness of such returns has to be questioned. Among the UK schemes examined here are the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP), Assisted Voluntary Return of Irregular Migrants (AVRIM), Assisted Voluntary Return for Families and Children (AVRFC), the Facilitated Returns Scheme (FRS) and the now discontinued ‘Explore and Prepare’ schemes.

Negotiating State Logic

This article examines the way in which onshore asylum seekers negotiate state logic and harness resources to campaign for their right and opportunity to stay on in the host country permanently. This paper is based on a multi-method study of the case of about 45,000 Chinese nationals, mostly students, no less than 50 percent of whom were over-stayers, living in Australia who sought to stay after the Tiananmen incident of 1989. The Chinese students, as they were called in Australia, succeeded in the end in obtaining residence through pursuing intensive lobbying activities over a period of four or so years from June 1989 to November 1993, and became the largest onshore migration intake in Australian history.BR Regardless of the causality in the relationship, both humanitarian and refugee immigration programs in Australia in 1989 were undergoing the most far-reaching changes, aimed at controlling the increased numbers of illegal entrants and onshore asylum seekers, including the Chinese students. In such a culture of control (Cronin 1993), the Migration Act of Australia had been amended 11 times between 1989 and 1992, and the Regulations governing this country"s immigration programs had seen 58 amendments during the same period. Similarly, during the period covered by this study, more than six major changes to the humanitarian and refugee programs were made, toughening the residence terms for all asylum seekers who would only get four-year permits rather than immediate permanent residence, as was the case at the time. In fact, within the first 12 months after the Tiananmen incident, in the first set of policy responses to the student issue, the Australian government had extended the students" visas unconditionally four times, all of which indicated nothing more than temporary protection similar to the US government position on the Chinese students living in America (Frelick and Kohnen 1995). Despite such an unfavorable situation, the Chinese students prevailed. Active and strategic lobbying delivered residence to not only those who arrived in Australia before the event, but also to tens of thousands of others who arrived afterwards.BR This study is concerned with how the state logic was challenged and broken, and how the migrant logic was formulated and implemented to negotiate the state logic, with a particular focus on the interaction between the two types of logic. The discussion considers three key aspects of the interaction. The first section looks at how the students acquired a number of clues from government policies and created their own logic. This is followed by an analysis of how the changing stance of the Australian government towards onshore asylum seekers led the students to form an organized approach while their temporary protection was repeatedly renewed. Also examined are the organized political activities carried out by the students in order to deal with the politically fundamental issues behind the state logic and to capitalise on the permissiveness of the local polities. The analysis attempts to convey a picture of the typical social experiences of onshore asylum seekers and how they turned the impossible into the possible.

Los Derechos de los Extranjeros en Situación Irregular: Reflexiones a la Luz de la Práctica de los Sistemas de Protección de Derechos Humanos en el Ambito Europeo y Americano (The Rights of Undocumented Migrants in the Light of Recent International Practice in Europe and America)

The purpose of this paper is to analyze recent developments in the protection of human rights of undocumented migrants and identify unresolved controversial issues in this field. In the current international situation, undocumented migrants continue clearly to face problems concerning their status and their rights, in particular, those who have entered the territory of the State illegally (illegal entrants) or have stayed illegally even if they initially entered legally (migrants who have stayed longer than the law or their permits allow). At the UN level, the tendency in the last twenty years has been towards a gradual development of a more precise framework regarding in particular the situation of migrant workers. Furthermore, regional bodies and regional human rights law provide general standards applicable to specific cases. In particular, the European system of human rights and the inter-American system of human rights offer mechanisms to assess the respect of the commitments by States under international human rights law. It should be pointed out that European Union has been also developing a practice to handle the situation of undocumented migrants. Thus, this paper deals with the protection of human rights of undocumented migrants in two different contexts: Europe and America, analyzing different systems: on the one hand the European Convention on Human Rights System and the European Union, and, on the other and Inter-American System. The progress in the practice of these regional systems in relation to the protection of undocumented migrant is described and the points of convergence between systems as well as controversial are highlighted.

Pinacate Campmates

Pinacate Campmates Bill Hoy and Bill Broyles As in great fiction and film, many of life’s supporting cast prove to be memorable in their own right. We may find Queequeg in Moby Dick, Ma Joad in The Grapes of Wrath, the bandit leader in Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or Mammy in Gone with the Wind as interesting as we do the central characters. Here’s a second look at some of the role-players in William T. Hornaday’s Camp-Fires on Desert and Lava and Carl Lumholtz ’s New Trails in Mexico. Even though they had secondary roles in the expeditions, they were locally prominent, sought out for their knowledge, or selected for their abilities. Hornaday’s trip included Jeff Milton, Godfrey Sykes, Frank Cole, Rube Daniels, and John Phillips. Among others, Lumholtz met Juan Caravajales, Queléle, “Doctor” Pancho, Alberto Celaya, Clemente, Judge Traino Quiroz, and José Juan. Here, in hopes of according these characters a more respected place in Pinacate history, we share what we’ve subsequently learned about them, even though much of it remains fragmentary. Celaya has his own chapter elsewhere in this journal, and Sykes his in the summer issue. Hornaday Expedition Jefferson Davis Milton Jeff Milton may be the most revered lawman in the history of Arizona. Wyatt Earp may have been more famous, or infamous, but Milton was everything a model officer should be. Jeff once boasted, “I never killed Bill Hoy served the National Park Service for thirty-three years, including Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, where he interviewed many local people and chronicled their histories. He is now retired, living near Fort Bowie, Arizona, and studying Apache lifeways. Bill Broyles is a perennial freshman at the desert schoolhouse, where he has been educated by the spine of a cactus, the call of a quail, and the words of patient sages. His latest homework includes Sunshot: Peril and Wonder in the Gran Desierto, and he had a hand in Dry Borders: Great Natural Reserves of the Sonoran Desert. Journal of the Southwest 49, 3 (Autumn 2007) : 323–355 324 ✜ Journal of the Southwest a man that didn’t need killing and I never shot an animal except for meat” (Haley 1948:411). He was born November 7, 1861, on a Florida plantation to wealthy parents who traced their lineage to poet John Milton , but the Civil War reduced them to poverty, and at age sixteen Jeff wandered to Texas and drifted across the Southwest from job to job as a cowhand, Texas Ranger, deputy sheriff, livestock inspector, mounted customs inspector, railroad courier and special agent, immigration inspector , and Border Patrol agent. Jeff was forty-three years old when he undertook his strenuous desert patrols. In 1904 the U.S. Immigration Service set up “Chinese inspectors ,” hiring line riders who would patrol the border for illegal entrants, Jeff Milton. Pinacate, November 1907. (John M. Phillips stereo, Arizona Historical Society—Tucson, Photo Number 71879.) Pinacate Campmates ✜ 325 including the Chinese. The Immigration Service assigned Jeff to the job of “Chinese agent for the United States in a foreign country.” His border “beat” ran west nearly three hundred miles from Nogales, Arizona, to the Colorado River. His duty station would be “at large,” and he would work “entirely on his own initiative and responsibility.” Occasionally, he scrawled monthly activity reports to his supervisor—when he thought the events warranted. For twelve to fourteen hours a day or more, often seven days a week, Jeff and other line riders searched for tracks, chased violators, and apprehended them. Jeff Milton became the foremost of these men. He earned five dollars a day plus $3.50 per diem for himself and his horses. His transportation consisted of a saddle horse, pack animals, or sometimes a mule‑drawn spring wagon adapted to desert terrain. His arsenal was a shotgun, Winchester carbine, and two six-shooters, plus he carried three‑gallon canteens hung from either side of his mules. He felt comfortable in the wild. Milton possessed an uncommon respect for wild creatures. He tossed his food scraps to them. He never killed rattlesnakes and remarked, “If I was running the government, I’d make it a...

Social Work Practice with Mexican Clients

SUMMARY This article surveys the history of Mexican-United States relations and discusses implications for social work practice engaging the undocumented Mexican population in treatment. Methods of service provision that seek to minimize clients' fear of obtaining social services are discussed. Factors considered include: self-awareness and cultural competency on the part of the worker, trauma symptoms arising from migration, and agency policy considerations that impact service delivery. Practitioners must be educated about immigration policies and public benefits and services available to illegal entrants. Agencies and social workers have to work to engage and empower Mexican clients to enjoy their civil rights in the United States as they build families and flourish in this country.

Compassionate Refugee Politics?

Compassionate Refugee Politics?

Controlling ‘Unwanted’ Immigration: Lessons from the United States, 1993–2004

This paper evaluates the strategy for controlling ‘unwanted’ immigration that has been implemented by the US government since 1993, and suggests explanations for the failure of that strategy to achieve its stated objectives thus far. Available evidence suggests that a strategy of immigration control that overwhelmingly emphasises border enforcement and short-changes interior (especially workplace) enforcement has caused illegal entries to be redistributed along the south-west border. The evidence also suggests that the financial cost of illegal entry has more than quadrupled; that undocumented migrants are staying longer in the United States; that migrant deaths resulting from clandestine border crossings have risen sharply; and that there has been a surge in anti-immigrant vigilante activity. Consequences predicted by advocates of the concentrated border enforcement strategy have not yet materialised: there is no evidence that unauthorised migration is being deterred at the point of origin; that would-be illegal entrants are being discouraged at the border after multiple apprehensions by the Border Patrol and returning home; that their employment prospects in the US have been curtailed; or that the resident population of undocumented immigrants is shrinking. It is argued that a severely constrained employer-sanctions enforcement effort that has left demand for unauthorised immigrant labour intact is the fundamental reason why steadily escalating spending on border enforcement during the last ten years has had such a weak deterrent effect. Reasons for the persistence of a failed immigration control policy are discussed, and alternatives to the current policy are evaluated.

The Occupational Safety and Health Rights and Workers’ Compensation Entitlements of Illegal Immigrants: An Emerging Challenge

AbstractThe past two decades have witnessed a growing level of illegal immigration into Western Europe, North America, Australasia and parts of the Middle East and Asia. The employment of illegal immigrants (also known as ‘undocumented workers’), or visitors working contrary to their visas, raises a series of policy issues – problems exacerbated by the fears and vulnerability of these workers. This paper examines the occupational safety and health and workers’ compensation obligations of employers who engage illegal entrants, or persons working contrary to visa requirements, and the rights of those workers. While the primary focus of the paper is on the Australian experience, comparison is made to the situation in the USA and (to a lesser extent) Europe. Available evidence indicates that foreigners working illegally are more likely to be subjected to exploitative (in terms of wages and conditions) and unsafe employment practices. Although occupational safety and health statutes in Australia, and probably ...

戦前・戦後の朝鮮人「密入国者」に関する一考察

戦前・戦後の朝鮮人「密入国者」に関する一考察

Song of War

The international community has re-discovered Afghanistan after ignoring the civil war that has raged there since 1992. The reason for this is yet another war, this time waged by the United States against the ruling Taliban and their guest Osama bin Laden. War fought in the name of peace is an unconvincing slogan to many, particularly those who reap the results of conflict generation after generation. Women and children in Afghanistan know better than anyone else what war has brought them, and their stories are cautionary tales to those who believe in the healing powers of more violence and forced displacement. When Hafeeza spoke to us about her experience of war and the Taliban from a refugee camp in Peshawar, it was in the year 2000, when the world's interest in Afghanistan had slipped to its lowest point ever. The un international appeal for humanitarian aid brought in so little money that it embarrassed them to announce the figures. Pakistan had officially declared that it too was tired of supporting millions of destitute refugees when two decades had gone by with no hope of improvement. It had sealed the border with Afghanistan, turning back the new waves of drought-cum-war refugees at the border and rounding up illegal entrants to send them home. Haifa million new refugees came into Pakistan that year. The Pakistan government refused them refugee status and asked the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (unhcr) to set up the new refugee camps inside Afghanistan instead. At that point the tale of Hafeeza proved that the condition of new refugees from Afghanistan was urgent and serious, meriting immediate international action and a more sympathetic consideration from the Pakistan government. While the latest Afghan war has certainly focussed international attention on the plight of war victims, nonetheless humanitarian assistance is still falling short of targets and the Pakistan government is still refusing to open its borders to accept the displaced. But

Implementation of the Immigration (Carriers’Liability) Act 1987: Privatising Immigration Functions at the Expense of International Obligations?

It is now a decade since the United Kingdom, along with Germany and Belgium, followed the policy of traditional countries of immigration, such as the United States, Canada and Australia, and introduced legislation which provides for the imposition of fines on carriers for bringing in passengers with incorrect papers.1The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 (“the Act”)2imposed fines on carriers of £1,000 for each illegal entrant brought to the United Kingdom. This fine was doubled in August 1991 and two years later extended to cover passengers without transit visas where these were required.3

Multiculturalism and immigration: A comparison of the United States, Germany, and Great Britain

If there is one general conclusion to be drawn from these case histories, it is this: having accepted significant numbers of immigrants at one point or more in the postwar period, liberal states had to tolerate the multicultural transformation of their societies. This is because liberal states, while nominally tied to particular nations, are still hesitant to impose particular cultural ways on their members. Liberal states are neutral vis a vis substantive life forms and world views, which proved to be the major inroad for multiculturalism. This communality of liberal states is revealed, shock-like, if one compares them with the illiberal, increasingly immigrant-receiving states of the Near and Middle East or East Asia: states that practice caning of illegal entrants and forced repatriation of labor migrants. This does not mean that, in confrontation with radical challenges to its very premises, liberalism can itself turn into a “fighting creed,” as Charles Taylor put it. This it did during the Rushdie Affair, which remains the most dramatic demonstration of the limits to multiculturalism in a liberal society. The “British liberties” held against protesting Muslims was “liberties” first, and “British” second - the national marker being exchangeable, the commitment to universal (Western) principles like freedom of speech and expression empathically not. As a result of the multicultural challenge, Western nations are increasingly stripped of their particular cultural contents and reduced to civic communities committed to the same procedural rules. This is why a second-generation Turkish-German intellectual could say that immigration offered a (however ignored) “opportunity” for the German nation to ease its historical burdens. In summary, liberal states have multiculturalism, because they have given up the idea of assimilating their members beyond basic procedural commitments.

Reinventing Immigration Law Enforcement in the Southern District of California

For two or more generations, more than 50% of those who attempted to enter the United States illegally did so through the Southern District of California. Each year, up to 600,000 arrests were made here at a porous and largely unguarded border. Most of those arrested were economic migrants. Several thousand, however, were criminal aliens. Seemingly without exception, those who were apprehended provided false names and identification documents to Border Patrol and INS Agents, who often had no way to determine quickly the true identity and criminal background of the arrestee. Adding to these challenges was the fact that the Southern District of California was home to only one federal jail?the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in downtown San Diego. Built to house 456 inmates in 1974 (a capacity later expanded to 607), by 1994, the MCC routinely housed 1200 or more. 72% of the inmates were not U.S. citizens. For years, misdemeanor prosecutions, princi pally for violation of the U.S. Immigration Code, outpaced felony prosecutions in this District by a ratio of 5 to 1. Given limited detention space, misdemeanor prosecutions were preferred?they moved through the system quickly, making limited bed space available for the next misdemeanant. The fact remained, however, that even 5,000 such misdemeanor prosecutions were a de minimis drop in the bucket?595,000 illegal entrants still faced no sanction. It was clear that misdemeanor prosecu tions, even by the thousands, did nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Since each illegal entrant violates federal criminal law merely by entering the United States, it was readily apparent that we could not, even were it deemed desirable, arrest, prosecute, and convict a half million or more people annually. In order to regain control of and reinstitute the rule of law at the border, it was clear that the Govern ment needed to: (1) provide the Border Patrol and INS with the personnel, equipment, and technology required to reduce illegal immigration in the first instance; (2) focus our prosecutorial attention on alien smugglers and on those undocumented aliens who are linked directly to violence and crime in the community; (3) impose an administrative, rather than a criminal, sanction against first-time violators of our immigration laws by expanding the use of the U.S. Immigration Courts; and (4) develop a credible and effective policy of worksite enforcement to discourage U.S. employers from hiring illegal entrants.

Family nurse practitioner faculty clinical practice with undocumented migrants

Undocumented migrants, largely from Mexico and Latin America, are crossing into the United States in unprecedented numbers. This article describes a family nurse practitioner (FNP) faculty clinic in a residential facility for illegal aliens. It documents, for the first time, the physical problems detected in newly arrived illegal migrants, defines the areas most in need of enhanced health compliance (dental care, family planning, safe sexual behavior, nutrition counseling, and stress reduction techniques), and offers a model for effective, low-cost health screening. The information contributes to our general knowledge of the health-illness status of illegal entrants

Wasted Lives: Tuberculosis and Other Health Risks of Being Haitian in a U.S. Detention Camp

In 1982, the author interviewed 38 Haitian tuberculosis patients and had informal discussions with nonpatients and medical personnel at Krome, a detention camp for illegal entrants run by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. This article considers health and other conditions at Krome and the reactions of detainees and medical personnel to those conditions. The patients found life at Krome especially difficult. Ambivalent toward their diagnosis of tuberculosis and dissatisfied with their therapy, they accused camp officials of trying to justify exclusionary immigration practices by treating Haitians as disease ridden. But the patients also regarded Krome as an unhealthy environment and complained regularly of illnesses to camp physicians. These often accused their patients of malingering in order to obtain release from Krome. Neither medical personnel nor detainees agreed on what constituted a healthy Haitian. Ultimately, the Haitian desire for freedom and the opposing purpose of camp officials to dictate the terms of Haitian confinement found expression in competing definitions of health and illness.

Job placement prospects and attitudes toward employment for undocumented Mexican Border‐Crossers in a U.S. Federal Correctional Institution

The influx of undocumented border-crossers from the Republic of Mexico into the United States has reached alarming proportions. The concern stems not only from their anticipated impact on job markets and social services utilization (Cooper 1985), but also from their growing impact on the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Illegal immigration is a federal offense and punishable by imprisonment in federal facilities. In 1970, the total number of arrested illegal entrants was 345,353 (80.3 percent Mexican). However, only 2,865 were prosecuted and convicted of illegal entry or illegal re-entry. In 1978, a total of 862,217 illegal border-crossers were apprehended (98 percent Mexican) of which 15,519 were prosecuted and convicted of either illegal entry or illegal re-entry (INS Annual Reports 1981). A record 1.77 million undocumented aliens were apprehended nationwide in fiscal 1986, a one-third increase over 1985 according to the U.S. Justice Department (Record Number 1986). Because all these cases have not yet been disposed of by the criminal justice system, there are no estimates about numbers of convictions for illegal entry from this pool. It is clear, however, that the federal prison system is struggling to keep up with the increasing number of convicted illegal entrants. Federal correctional facilities are currently housing about 31,000 inmates, which is about 28 percent over capacity (Bulging Prisons... 1984).

Prohibited Immigrants and Illegal Entrants under Barbados and United Kingdom Immigration Laws

In Roger Seymour v. Chief Immigration Officer, the Court of Appeal of Barbados had to decide what is "ordinary residence" under the Barbados immigration laws, and whether prohibited immigrants could be ordinarily resident under such laws. The fundamental difference between Mr. Seymour under Barbados law and Mr. Sidhu (and others), under English law was that Mr. Seymour's initial entry into Barbados was perfectly legal under the Barbados immigration laws, whereas, in the United Kingdom cases, the initial entry of the persons concerned was illegal.The Barbados legal position may be contrasted with the English legal position because in England, the Immigration Act of 1971, as from January 1, 1973, effected a fundamental change in the law. Mr. Sidhu was an illegal entrant under the Act and fell to be dealt with under this Schedule unless he came within any of the exceptions. The main exception to consider was whether he was "settled" under section 1 (2) of the 1971 Act. "Settled" is defined in section 33 (1) in terms of being ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom without being subject to any restriction under the immigration laws on the period for which one may remain. Clearly he was not subject under the immigration laws to any restriction as to the period for which he may remain, because he had evaded the immigration laws altogether; but the court had to decide whether he was ordinarily resident under the applicable Immigration Act.The decisions of the English Courts differ from the Barbados Court of Appeal decision. The English Courts decided that an illegal entrant can hardly be said to be lawfully ordinarily resident. He is a person whose residence has been initiated by an illegal act, and it is difficult to see why his illegal entry should be ignored in deciding whether or not he is lawfully there. A person who snatches a lady's purse with the intention of permanently depriving her of it is undoubtedly in possession of the purse, but such possession is certainly not lawful. Similarly, the act of illegal entry renders the whole period of residence not lawful. The appellants were therefore not able to bring themselves within the exceptions, they were not able to establish that they were "settled" within the definition mandated by the English Immigration Laws.