Litigation on Immigration

The British Government aims to "prune" the public sector by abolishing 180 QUANGOS (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organizations). The News today (BBC Radio 4) also announced that the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants aims to challenge the Government in court over its policy to impose a cap on non-EU migrants.
The taxpayer (mostly Englishmen) funds QUANGOS, the JCWI, and the proposed litigation.
If the Government is really serious about saving public money, it could start by abolishing the JCWI.
The media, meanwhile, could more accurately use the word "foreigners" instead of "migrants", as is its wont. The word "migrants" sells the pass: it gives foreigners a claim to permanent residence which they do not necessarily have; it also promotes a mind-set among the population at large to that effect.
Judges, meanwhile, should note that all litigation on immigration is one-sided.
There has yet to be a judge who acts on behalf of those natives whose welfare is (and has been) harmed by immigration to the UK.

Selfish and Self-righteous

Of the 185,000 foreigners who were issued with Student Visas 5 years ago 21% are still in the UK, according to research undertaken by the Home Office.(BBC Radio 4"Today".) Two-fifths of those who were issued with Work Visas, which normally have a time limit, are still in the UK.
The native British have only themselves to blame.
Enabling foreigners to extend their residence here (even permanently) is big business. They even work on behalf of those who are here illegally. (See e.g. www.ukvisaexperts.co.uk, which advertises on this very blogsite!) If there is no law against them doing that, then that is remiss of the Government.
By employing notional issues framed by the moral-sounding phrase "human rights" those in the immigration industry are both selfish and self-righteous.

Toothache

Britain is this week celebrating the Battle of Britain, which took place 70 years ago.
Professor A.J.P. Taylor, in his Origins of the Second World War, argues that Hitler had no territorial ambitions in Western Europe; he admired Britain; and he wanted to achieve his aims in the East with the threat of war and/or with mini wars.
Britain declared war on Germany (3 September 1939) because Germany attacked Poland. But it begs the question: Why didn't Britain then declare war on the Soviet Union when she also attacked Poland a few days later?
The "miracle of Dunkirk", when 300,000 British soldiers escaped across the Channel, was not due to a blunder by Hitler. He ordered his tank commanders to stop because he wanted to make peace with Britain and France.
Britain's Foreign Secretary, Halifax, wanted to make peace, and with Prime Minister Chamberlain's resignation in May 1940 the choice of Prime Minister lay between him and Churchill. Unfortunately, Halifax had toothache!
What were the Germans supposed to do, with a country that would not make peace? (They weren't requiring Britain's surrender.)
As for the "blitz", the Luftwaffe was destroying the Royal Air Force on the ground, so Churchill ordered some bombers to bomb Berlin. Hitler took the bait, and changed targets from airfields to cities. The Luftwaffe was not pleased.
In 1945 Goering, head of the Luftwaffe, told his British captors that Germany hadn't wanted war with Britain; that though the British thought they had won a great victory they would lose their Empire.
When Britain's colonies became independent they promptly imposed travel restrictions on the British; Britain did not bring in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act until the end of June 1962.
If there are no travel restrictions the question of Marriage and Migration does not arise.
Therefore, as far as Britain and the Commonwealth is concerned, people use marriage to occupy the UK - because of a toothache!