Marriage and Migration

Japan's New 20 Year-Olds

2012-01-15T01:28:00.000-08:00

The Japan Times, 1 January 2012:
"The number of people aged 20 years old this New Year's Day is estimated at 1.2 million, falling to less than half its peak of around 2.4 million in 1970 for the first time....
"Of the 1.2 million people that reached adulthood in the last year, 620,000 are men and 600,000 women."
In 2011 the respective figures were 630,000 and 610,000.
In 1992 they were 1,100,000 and 970,000.
It's a disaster for Japan that for a long time the birthrate is very low and that there is consistently a large excess of males to females.
This situation is exacerbated by foreign men being allowed to live and work in Japan through marriage.
On 12 May 1982 (during the Falklands Conflict!) the European Commission of Human Rights determined in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live and work in the UK.
On 28 May 1985 the European Court of Human Rights ruled similarly.
Meanwhile, in 1982 the decision was taken in Japan to allow foreign men to live and work in Japan through marriage. The law came into effect on 1 January 1985.
Those at the Council of Europe, which clearly brought about pressure ("gaiatsu") on Japan, cannot like the Japanese.

Daft Fuss

2012-01-09T07:35:00.000-08:00

Many native people in these islands have selfish reasons for wanting foreign and Comonwealth people to take up permanent residence in them.
Many others oppose it.
Those foreign and Commonwealth people who want to settle here exploit this conflict of interests.
Therefore the recent fuss about Diane Abbott MP saying on Twitter that "white people" (Russians?) like to "divide and rule" is very strange.

Natural Justice

2012-01-05T02:56:00.000-08:00

Two native Londoners were jailed yesterday for the killing of Stephen Lawrence.BBC News (6 p.m.) interviewed people in South London. Responding to the Government being blamed for immigration to the UK, the reporter said there was still "prejudice and bigotry". This was another example of otherwise excellent BBC employees revealing their own prejudice against people who oppose immigration to the UK.
Immigration is about allowing other peoples to occupy one's own territory.
Naturally, while some people want it (lawyers flourish!), others are made very unhappy by it.
In Goodbye to All That , Robert Graves' outstanding account of his experiences in the trenches during the First World War, the author says that though he would have expected the Scots to be the best British soldiers he would have liked to say his own (Welsh Guards) were the best, but he had to concede that Londoners were the best.
Stephen Lawrence, like his killers, was a teenager. They had something else in common. They were all male.
Foreign husbands are male.
When in 1979 the Immigration Minister was asked why the Government was not going to keep its promise to prevent foreign men from being able to live in the UK through marriage he replied: "Because of the fuss."
Yesterday on BBC Radio 4 Today Jack Straw (former Cabinet Minister) said the two convicted men were from "criminal families". Sounds slanderous.
To add insult ("bigotry") to injury (jail) those responsible for inflicting much unhappiness on many native British men remain unpunished.

Christmas Present (and Past & Future)

2011-12-16T06:07:00.000-08:00

The High Court has ruled that someone who does not speak English cannot use marriage as a means to live and work in the United Kingdom. (Three women brought the case on behalf of their husbands. BBC Radio 2, News. There was no mention as to who paid for the litigation.)
If judges can make the law (rather than Parliament) then - for the general good of the nation - why can't judges determine that no foreign and Commonwealth men can use marriage as a means to occupy the UK?

Supremely Illogical

2011-10-13T06:34:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court (a Tony Blair initiative) has ruled that foreign and Commonwealth people who want to marry cannot be prevented from entering the UK. (BBC Radio 4 News, yesterday 6 p.m.)
A judge said that having to live together abroad breaches their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Art. 8: "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
"2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The judge is illogical. What he said clearly implies that anyone in a marriage outside these unfortunate islands is being deprived of a family life.
Besides, the 2nd. item in Art. 8 provides a clear get-out. Democracy (i.e. Parliament, not judges) should determine this issue.
The News broadcast also stated: "Youth unemployment is at an all-time high."
Litigation is very expensive. Doubtless it was the British taxpayer who funded the litigants who doubtless are very grateful to a (barmy) country that pays to have itself occupied.

Judge supports Criminal - Ridiculous

2011-10-10T05:08:00.000-07:00

David Cameron will say today (The Daily Telegraph, page 2): "We will also end the ridiculous situation where a registrar who knows a marriage is a sham still has to perform the ceremony."
He has been Britain's Prime Minister for 18 months. Why the delay? Has he only just realised?
Besides, if foreign men were not allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage they would not take part in a sham marriage.
This issue has come to the fore because the Home Secretary's speech to the Conservative Party's annual conference last week highlighted the case of a Bolivian (pictured on page 6 of today's Telegraph) illegally in the UK who cannot be deported because he has a relationship with someone else, and deporting him would, according to a judge, contravene Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
If the two men are so much in love what's to prevent them from living in Bolivia?
They could both enter the country legally.
Being in a country illegally is a crime. The judge would soon find that out if he were in Bolivia illegally.

P.S. The politicians (e.g. David Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary) blame the judges and the judges say they are only doing what the politicians want - ridiculous - ludicrous - lunatic....
It was said of Hamlet (Act V, Scene 1) that his madness would not be seen in England because "there the men are as mad as he".

If only he were alive today!

2011-09-22T06:06:00.000-07:00

Britain's Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, told party delegates yesterday that the European Convention on Human Rights had the support of Winston Churchill.
There is nothing in the Convention about immigration control.
And it is unimaginable to believe that Churchill supported the Convention being intepreted in such a way as to enable the UK to be occupied by other peoples.
Yet that is precisely what took place on 28 May 1985 when the European Court of Human Rights determined in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live on these overcrowded and hopelessly divided islands.

Support Plea: Please Support

2011-08-17T07:24:00.000-07:00

The British Government has launched a scheme whereby anyone can submit a petition which, if it gets 100,000 signatures, may be debated in Parliament.
I have just submitted a petition on Marriage and Migration - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/12694
I invite people to sign it.
Thanks!

As ye sow.... so shall ye weep

2011-08-10T06:33:00.000-07:00

The current nightly breakdown of law and order in England's biggest cities by rioting and pillaging youngsters is widely attributed to the breakdown of family life.
For a long time, some women seek careers and some enable foreign men to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Naturally, the result is a shortage of home-making women to go around and some men marry when they do not really want to.
Divorce is the inevitable consequence.

Jobs for Judges

2011-07-28T03:44:00.000-07:00

An Indian woman living in Leicester is bringing a case in the High Court to argue that her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are being violated.
This is because her husband and 6 children, in India, want to live with her in the UK.
Art. 8 states: "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others."
It was forcefully argued on BBC Radio 4 Today that Article 8 should not be stretched and that judges are both unelected and unaccountable.
The European Court of Human Rights determined on 28 May 1985 that men should be allowed to live in Britain through marriage.
The law was modified last November to require the men to be able to speak English. That is what this case is all about. Because the husband doesn't.
Normal practice is that it is up to Consular Officials only as to whether a visa is issued.
Judges in Britain argue that they are involved in these issues because Parliament wants them to be.
A caller to the Jeremy Vine Show pointed out that David Cameron promised in his 2010 election manifesto to stop human rights law from intervening in immigration cases.
Surely there is a good case for a judge citing Article 8 as a reason why no foreign men can use marriage as a means for being allowed to live and work in the UK.
There is nothing to prevent that woman from living in India. (Though you[?] and I cannot.)

Common Currency

2011-07-27T05:06:00.000-07:00

John Humphrys (BBC Radio 4 Today) and Jeremy Vine (BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show) have today both described the Norwegian gunman as a "madman".
A murderer, yes; but a madman, no.
He wants to prevent his country from being occupied by foreigners. That's not mad.
In January 1983 the British Parliament voted to allow foreign men to occupy the UK through marriage.
Mrs. Thatcher's Government thereby reneged on its 1979 election promise to end that concession. A Conservative Member of Parliament, Ivor Stanbrook, who voted against the measure, described it as "insane".
(Mrs. Thatcher killed people: 255 British servicemen died in the 1982 Falkands Conflict, not to mention Argentinians and 3 British women - all because of the occupation of territory.)
If prominent public figures (JH & JV) categorically state something it becomes common currency.

Criminal Activity (2)

2011-06-12T03:34:00.000-07:00

Last Friday (9 June) Sky 3's UK Border Force featured an Australian who was refused entry at Heathrow and forced to return to Australia. Immigration officers were suspicious that he wanted to work because he had "only" £1,500.
He has a wife in Oz, so there could have been no suspicion that he wanted to acquire permanent residence through marriage.
One can only conclude that the reason for the cruel and inhuman treatment we witnessed was that politicians impose quotas to impress voters.

Criminal Activity

2011-06-12T03:13:00.000-07:00

Foreign criminals cannot be deported if they have family in the UK. (BBC Radio 4 News.) This is because, it is said, of the European Convention on Human Rights.
But there is nothing in the Convention about immigration control; and the specific reason for setting up the Council of Europe was to prevent the excesses of the Second World War from happening again. So the very last thing it should do is enable people from non-member states to occupy member states.
Quite the contrary, in addition to there being laws galore in this area there is ample normative scope - see, eg, my blog of 17 April - for the judiciary (in light of current tensions with the legislature) to at long last "End the concession to foreign husbands and male fiances" - as promised by Mrs Thatcher in her manifesto at the time of the 1979 General Election.

Power to all the People

2011-05-22T01:42:00.000-07:00

The Home Secretary decides that a Tunisian, associated with terrorism, should not be allowed to live in the UK. A judge determines otherwise. (BBC Radio 4 News.)
The concept of "rights" is widely thought to provide a necessary check on the abuse of power.
But if the only people who can avail themselves of "rights" are those who are subject to a government decision then they have a power that is denied to those who are not.
Two "Rights" Make a Wrong
President Obama, referring (BBC1, Andrew Marr Show) to Afghanistan, spoke of "human rights, including women's rights".
It was Mrs. Roosevelte who insisted that the term "human rights" replace "the rights of man" (Thomas Paine's expression) to ensure that females were included.
No one can doubt that in French "droits de l'homme" embraces both sexes.
In English, "human rights" either doesn't or feminists want something over and above "the rights of man".

Cherchez la Droite

2011-04-27T08:12:00.000-07:00

Many Tunisians have arrived in France having crossed the Mediterranean in boats sans papiers. They are "determined" to work; to stay permanently; and to raise families. (BBC Radio 4, World at One.) Since they are all young men they will compete with Frenchmen for wives. (By contrast, the "rush" by young men from the Commonwealth to enter the UK in the first half of 1962 before the Commonwealth Immigrants Act came into force at least - for the most part - did so avec papiers.)
It is not right that these Tunisians succeed while some of their law-abiding countrymen adhere to procedures, apply for a Shengen visa, but are refused one.
It would be right for a Frenchman to complain to the European Commission of Human Rights that these young men be deported back to their own country.
However, there is no chance of the ECHR investigating such a complaint, because it only investigates complaints from people who are personally subject to a decision by a public body.
This is a systemic bias - a procedural imbalance - , i.e. not equal.

"Out of Control"

2011-04-19T01:32:00.000-07:00

Immigration "has been completely out of control", said David Cameron on BBC Radio 4 Today this morning (8.10 a.m.)
He has been Prime Minister for 50 weeks, and, tellingly, he did not say it is now under control.
The ability of other peoples to occupy these unfortunate islands will never be under control while foreign men need only find someone to marry in order to avoid the constraints imposed by visas and entry permits.

Royal Inequality

2011-04-17T03:56:00.000-07:00

There is much talk in Britain ahead of the Royal Wedding (29 April) of the Government proposal to enable a female to inherit the throne on equal terms with a male heir.
Broadcasting House (BBC Radio 4) also remarked today on the Government Equalities Office which employs 10 people - all women.
The Government has enforced stringent cuts in the public sector.
The Equalities Office only exists because of wealth - which is created by production.
If the argument for its existence is normative then a normative policy would be to campaign for an end to the "concession" whereby foreign men can live and work in the UK through marriage.
It is unequal, because:
1) While foreign men are exploiting this loophole, British men are being killed and wounded on active service;
2) These foreign men can avail themselves of the "equality" laws to deprive native British men of work and promotion;
3) People in same nationality marriages do not have the opportunity to live in other countries through marriage;
4) Some other countries, e.g. Indonesia, do not allow foreign men to live and work in their country through marriage. But their citizens, of both sexes, can live and work in the UK through marriage;
5) The sex ratio of young people in the UK is being deliberately distorted - young men far outnumber young women;
6) England's population does not compare favorably with other countries. It is probably the world's most crowded country. Overcrowding is a royal recipe for stress and unhappiness....
7) It is plainly obvious that foreign and Commonwealth men use marriage as a means to occupy the UK. There is clearly a huge difference/inequality between occupying and being occupied. You would think that, of all people, the native British - even in the Equalities Office - would understand that. Even if they don't, it's for sure that other people most certainly do.
Broadcasting House also complained about the infanticide of female foetuses in India. There are not enough women for Indian men to have wives, so, of course, they come to Britain.

It's still a con

2011-04-14T01:51:00.000-07:00

"It's a con!" said a British National Party spokesman when asked on Today (BBC Radio 4) to comment on David Cameron's major speech later this morning on immigration. The Prime Minister will argue that Britain needs "good immigration, not mass immigration".
He is making this speech because elections are coming up. This is not only the BNP view, but was also a point made by the Immigration Minister, Damian Green (who said he doesn't want people to vote for "extremist parties").
In 1979 one of the principal reasons for people voting for Mrs. Thatcher was her promise to clamp down on immigration.
The Conservatives are still talking about it. Conning the voters is extreme.

Who is conning whom?

2011-04-12T01:14:00.000-07:00

The Church of England wants to clamp down on sham marriages. This morning the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds told BBC Radio 4's Today that vicars are being conned.
He did not say that the Church had opposed Mrs. Thatcher's 1979 election policy to end the concession whereby foreign men can live and work in the UK through marriage.
If they couldn't do that they wouldn't look for someone to marry in order to stay here.

Overview

2011-03-24T07:44:00.000-07:00

Sham marriages are increasing due to the involvement of criminal gangs. This problem is the subject of a BBC 1 Panorama program to be shown tonight.
The reason foreign men pay £8,000 to take part in a sham marriage is to enable them to live and work in the UK permanently.
Mrs. Thatcher promised to end this concession when she was elected in 1979. She didn't.
Judges opposed this reform.
So, judges are (at least, partially) responsible for criminal activity.
Well, we don't want judges to be added to the numbers of unemployed - do we?

Occupation and Control

2011-02-14T05:48:00.000-08:00

12,000 Muslim women come to the UK for marriage every year. (BBC Radio 4 Today.) It might not be good or right (there is potential for their sons - native Britons - to be in competition with other native British men in the future). But it cannot be prevented, as it is normal for a bride to live in her husband's home.
But it is also the reason for foreign and Commonwealth men being able to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Because of the campaign successfully waged by feminists - arguing "equality" - in the 1970s and 80s.
This site argues that (a) the reality is inequality, and (b) it is a self-inflicted cause for much unhappiness to many native British men (including me).
The First World War - just like this issue of marriage and migration - was about the occupation and control of territory. While men were at war, some British women were fighting for the Parliamentary vote.
The success of the latter (a transference of power from one sex to the other) was an inspiration to those feminists campaigning for the "right" of foreign and Commonwealth men to be able to live and work in the UK through marriage. The connection between the two campaigns - with the same certainty of victory - was made by, for example, Patricia Hewitt, who wrote The Abuse of Power in 1982 (Oxford: Martin Robinson) while General Secretary of the Council for Civil Liberties (now renamed Liberty ) and who subsequently achieved power herself when she became Minister for Women in Tony Blair's Government.

Raging Imbalance

2011-02-09T06:12:00.000-08:00

Tony Blair set up the Supreme Court to enhance independence by the judiciary. This has become a raging issue. Last night the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, gave a talk in London on Judicial Independence (which he believes is under threat).
This site has no quibbles with judicial independence. Judges should apply the law independent of political interference.
However, the reality is that judges interpret the law and the result, in effect, is that they determine the law.
In BBC 4's programme on the Supreme Court (27 January 2011) Lady Hale said: "We, of course, can say that decisions of earlier - or lower - courts are wrong."
Lord Phillips also remarked that judicial decisions can change. He added: "Fundamental human rights are of fundamental importance."
Lord Hope gave human rights as the reason why a homosexual cannot be deported. This may be a one-off case. But it doesn't stop there. It is not just one person who is affected. The law applies to all (foreign) homosexuals. And then there is chain migration. They marry and have (or adopt) children....
Uganda is said to be a country hostile to homosexuals (Metro, 8 February 2011, page 7).
If you (?) or I were to go to other countries there would be a time constraint (visa and/or entry permit). There is rarely any recourse to the law to over-ride that constraint.
This is evidence that, in the UK, not only does the legislature not make the law; but that the system is fundamentally unequal and unfair.
Gross inequality persists in part because people in transnational marriages are able to choose which country they want to live in. This is not open to people who marry people of the same nationality. (As outlined above.)
Where is that quintessence of justice - balance?
Balance could be restored if judges prosecute those politicians responsible for allowing foreign men to live and work in the UK through marriage.

Where there isn't a Will, There's a ... Waffle

2011-02-07T03:44:00.000-08:00

Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, addressed a conference on Global Security in Munich (remember September 1938?) over the weekend.
Refering to this, today's The Times main Leader (page 2) states:
"Multiculturalism...
"... has, sadly, failed.
"... instead of tolerance flowing from mutual respect, multiculturalism has led to alienation and atomisation. Some minorities, under no constraint to integrate, neither feel nor wish to feel part of the British mainstream."
Some people from other countries, well aware of this and quite happy to add to the UK's problems, nevertheless take up permanent residence here.
The British Government is in a position to prevent foreign men from using marriage as a means to do so - but lacks the will.
If David Cameron had announced that he is closing that loophole with immediate effect he would have said something of really great benefit to his flagship Big Society project.

Judges on a Roll

2011-01-25T05:40:00.000-08:00

"The power of judges has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished," so said Lord Howard, former Leader of the Conservative Party (BBC Radio 4, Today). Unlike politicians, Lord Howard pointed out, judges are neither elected nor accountable. He thought the Human Rights Act was partly to blame. "Hardly anyone disagrees with what I've just said." He ended by saying that the only winners are lawyers - financially.
However, his normative advice is unlikely to have any effect.
The Conservative Party was elected with a large majority in 1979 to end the concession by which foreign men can live and work in the UK through marriage.
But the Conservatives did not keep their promise. Mrs Thatcher's Government capitulated to the selfish demands of the feminists.
Britain has a new Supreme Court, created 1 October 2009.
Potentially, there is now an excellent opportunity for the Supreme Court to rule that allowing foreign men to use marriage as a means to occupy the UK is unlawful under the Human Rights Act.

Common Sense

2011-01-10T02:27:00.000-08:00

"Sham bride in bed with boyfriend" says the heading in today's The Daily Telegraph, page 11.
"... The Home Secretary also announced that from last November, people applying for marriage visas would have to demonstrate a minimum standard of English.
"But last month, the laws, which were credited with cutting sham marriages by more than 70 per cent in some areas, were scrapped by European judges.
"The rules, which required some immigrants to apply for a certificate of approval from the Home Office and pay a £295 fee before they could marry, were judged discriminatory and against the right to marry by the European Court of Human Rights."
Judges should discriminate.
These (foreign) people can marry in their own country.
What is the point of democracy if elected politicians don't make the laws?
What is the point of marriage when (foreign) people can get divorced (having acquired their "right" to "Indefinite leave to remain" in the UK?)
(Common Sense, written by Thomas Paine, who also wrote The Rights of Man , argued the case that the 13 Colonies should divorce from Britain. Which they duly did.)

Art. 25

2010-12-18T02:16:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's Daily Mail had a go at the Human Rights Act, because an immigration panel ruled that a failed asylum seeker - an Iraqi Kurd - cannot be deported.
BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show had an interview with a man whose daughter had been run over and killed by that Iraqi, and London's Metro, page 27, reports the distraught father saying of the decision: "I'm really angry. We should all be angry. It is a ridiculous state of affairs."
The reason for the ridiculous state of affairs is that the Iraqi has married a British woman and has two children. In other words, though being in the country illegally, he now has the "right" to permanent residence.
It is hard to believe that those who drew up the European Convention on Human Rights (in 1952) intended the interpretation put on it by the European Court of Human Rights at the end of May 1985.
The victim (the dead girl's father) was spot on when he pointed out that he has no rights concerning deporting the man.
That was my feeling when the European Commission of Human Rights failed to investigate my 1977 complaints. "... in accordance with Art. 25 of the Convention the Commission may only receive petitions from persons claiming to be the victim of a violation of any of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Commission has therefore always refused to recognise as victims those applicants who - like you - have neither directly suffered prejudice by virtue of a decision or act by a public authority concerning them personally, nor indirectly as a result of a violation committed against another person." (15 September 1977.)
I've read (W.H. Prescott's The History of the Conquest of Mexico ?) that following the Spanish conquest of the Americas many Indians didn't want to have children.
It's because of this issue that I don't....
By contrast, foreign and Commonwealth men who come to the UK want children - not only in order to live here permanently but also to strengthen the power of their community.
Rights?
Just?
It's just not right!

"Caring and Discrimination"

2010-12-13T07:41:00.000-08:00

We were repeatedly told this morning on BBC Radio 4 Today that fashion sense depends on "caring and discrimination".
The Queen flagrantly discriminated ("sabetsu" - please see my blog of 24 November) over the Summer.
Members of the European Parliament were invited to a Garden Party at Buckingham Palace.
But an exception was made for Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, who is an MEP.

Equality and Merit

2010-12-08T03:20:00.000-08:00

Tonight the Moral Debate on BBC Radio 4 is "Equality v. Merit".
There is no equality.
Not while British servicemen are being wounded and killed in combat.
It is strange that the English language has more words than any other, yet the word "discrimination", basically a "good" word, is, for want of another, generally used in a perjorative context.
It used to be, in Britain, that the phrase "class distinction" was common currency. (Please see my letter to "The Japan Times" of 17 March 1962.)
It has gone out of fashion, but the gap between rich and poor nowadays is said to be as great as it was in the 19th century.
It is not foreigners, even those who have acquired British nationality, who need laws to allow them to deprive native British men of work and promotion.
It's the poor English who need laws to protect them.
That's where the true "merit", the guiding star of Buddhists, lies.

Cultural and Linguistic Relativism

2010-11-24T02:30:00.000-08:00

According to the theory of linguistic relativity, language influences thought - the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
The sole argument used by the Council of Europe - the European Commission of Human Rights (13 May 1982) and the European Court of Human Rights (end May 1985) - to enable foreign men to live in the UK through marriage was that preventing them from doing so was "discrimination against women".
In English as soon as the word "discrimination" is mentioned there's an automatic feeling of wrong-doing.
In Japanese there are two words for "discrimination": "sabetsu" means "unfair treatment"; while "kubetsu" means "distinguishing right from wrong/good from bad".
Judges discriminate. If they can't, they shouldn't be there.
The Queen's Christmas message in 2004 was all about Asians and Africans living in Britain. "Discrimination still exists," said the Queen disapprovingly.
Discrimination ought to exist. The more discrimination the better. It's a normative prerequisite for justice.
I'm afraid I'm old enough to remember Englishmen's complaint in the 1940s: "The Americans are over-paid, over-sexed and over here." To which the Americans' reply was: "The British are under-paid, under-sexed and under Eisenhower!"
If some countries are rich and peaceful, while others are poor and war-torn, then it is obvious who wants to live in which country. Women living in a rich and peaceful country have nothing about which to complain.
British women may be regarded as lucky to live in these islands, but they may also have the privilege in being able to live abroad through marriage. There is nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights about privileging people.

Fairness - a Good Idea

2010-11-23T01:41:00.000-08:00

The Church of England General Synod opens today in London. It'll be opened by the Head of the Church. The Queen. Who sparked modern feminism in Britain with her Christmas message of 1967.
Top of the Synod's agenda is having women bishops.
The Government's solution to curbing immigration to the UK is a cap on Work Visas.
That cap has been announced (BBC Radio 4 Today) as 43,000 (but with exceptions).
Since Work Visas have a time limit the cap is pointless. It is also criminal. (Though, technically, that's up to a judge/jury to say.) Because David Cameron deceived the electorate during the run-up to the May General Election by stressing it was the solution to the problem of migration to the UK.
Every day 1,000 people enter the UK on Student Visas. As with most other visas there is a time constraint.
The reality is that to control immigration effectively, foreigners have to be prevented from taking up permanent residence.
A major solution would be to end the concession to foreign men who currently can obtain permanent residence through marriage.
This was promised by Mrs. Thatcher in 1979.
Britain now has another female in charge - Mrs. May is Home Secretary.
She, too, is letting down the electorate.
The European Court of Human Rights is also partly to blame.
It's pointless having elections.
Today also revealed that any asylum seeker who fails in his claim can appeal to the European Court. Under Rule 39 he cannot be deported.
At the end of May 1985 the European Court ruled in favor of three women whose foreign husbands wanted to live in the UK. That was unfair, because there was nothing to prevent them living together in their husband's country.(Malawi, Egypt and the Philippines.) I can't. And I doubt if many readers can.
The current "buzzword" amongst all British politicians these days is "fairness".
It would be fair if native Britons could make use of the European Court to prevent the occupation of "their" country. But they can't. I tried (10 June 1977).
When Mahatma Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation he famously replied that he thought it would be a "good idea".
Fairness for native Britons would be a good idea.

Unequal Britain

2010-11-17T05:26:00.000-08:00

37% of immigration cases brought before a Tribunal are successful. (BBC Radio 4 Today , today.)
This was used to argue that Immigration officials should be more efficient and not make mistakes.
If they do make mistakes, then equally many foreigners are in the UK when - by rights - they shouldn't be. But they do not complain to Immigration Tribunals!
In other words, there should not be any such Tribunals.
Native Britons have no recourse to Tribunals to correct those mistakes.
Similarly, the legal profession is deeply involved in immigration cases - as reference to the Law Reports in The Times reveal. But it is only those who want to live here who can avail themselves of the law.
If Britons go to other countries and their visa runs out - that's it, they have to leave.

Warning: Ongoing Deception

2010-11-16T06:07:00.000-08:00

Phil Woolas, until recently Britain's Immigration Minister, has been stripped of his parliamentary seat by two High Court judges. (London's Evening Standard, page 1.)
Page 8 of the same paper states that Mrs. Theresa May, Britain's Home Secretary, and Minister for Women and Equality, "promised stricter rules to make it more difficult for temporary migrants to stay in Britain permanently."
The Commons Home Affairs Committee warned that this would be impossible "unless new curbs on student arrivals and the ability of migrants to bring family members with them were introduced."
If foreigners are "migrants" then they already have the right to permanent residence. It's no wonder the Government cannot get a grip on this issue if the very words they use are misleading.

Warning Undertones

2010-11-16T05:57:00.000-08:00

The Daily Telegraph of 3 November, page 8: "The Government's planned immigration cap will make 'little difference' and allow more than 400,000 migrants to move to Britain every year, MPs warn today."
The article below states:
"A taxi driver has been ordered to remove the slogan "British by birth, English by the grace of God" from his cab.
Council officials told the Gulf war veteran that two passengers had been offended by the sign's 'racist overtunes'."

"Rights" Result in Rural Wrongs

2010-11-09T03:48:00.000-08:00

Today's Daily Telegraph, page 11, tells of "the mainly Nigerian grooms paying up to £10,000 to marry eastern European women legally living here.
"Clergy have become more vigilant after a series of sham marriages at St Peter's Church in Accrington."
Country vicars are being targeted as being ignorant as to what is happening.
Scope for this "immigration fraud" was provided by the European Court of Human Rights which (wrongly, I believe) ruled in favour of foreign men being allowed to live and work in the UK (end May 1985).

"Rights" (?) Racket

2010-10-25T06:35:00.000-07:00

No-longer-young unattached British women take holidays in Gambia. Lots of young men fall over themselves to be helpful. (Today's Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2.)
It's a racket. The young men don't just want money; they want marriage, so as to be able to live and work in the UK.
They can do this through marriage because of the European Court of Human Rights (end of May 1985).
Winston Churchill was partly responsible for setting up the Council of Europe (home to the ECHR). It's hard to believe he would agree with the Court's decision.
One woman followed her husband back to Gambia - and found he was already married.
If these women really want to marry these men they have the privilege to be allowed to live with them in Gambia.

Equality Act(ion)

2010-10-01T07:04:00.000-07:00

Britain's Equality Act comes into force today.
Like its predecessors it obliges foreigners (quaintly described in Orwellian terms - www.equalities.gov.uk - as people who "have passports from different countries") to be employed on an equal basis with native Britons.
Even if native Britons can work on an equal basis with them in their countries, the issue of equality is not addressed. This is (in part) because the Englishman (as an example) who fails to get work or promotion (because it has gone to a foreigner) is not the same man who is fortunate enough to be working abroad.
The new Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, acknowledged in his very first speech that one reason Labour lost the General Election in May was because of immigration to the UK. Does he (or anyone else) think the new Government will get to grips with the issue?
People talk all around the houses on this issue - and have done so for the past 50 years - but the Big Issue, promised by Mrs Thatcher in 1979, is stopping foreign men from using marriage as a means to live and work in the UK.
Until Parliament passes an Act enforcing that... there can be no equality.

Litigation on Immigration

2010-09-24T07:03:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-06T01:09:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-05T05:36:00.000-07:00

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!

Glasshouses

2010-08-31T05:35:00.000-07:00

The UK is signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights.
These are legal documents, but "refugee" and "human rights" are used as catchwords/phrases to promote highly subjective moral agendas.
Having two bites of the cherry is not right.
The definition of a refugee is someone who has a "well-found fear of persecution".
But very many people who aren't being persecuted but don't want to return to their own country are successful in claiming refugee status. They appeal to moral issues.
There should be no bigger "right" than to prevent other people from occupying one's territory. But Englishmen have no such "right". On 10 June 1977 I complained unsuccessfully to the European Commission of Human Rights about foreign and Commonwealth men being able to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Today's Daily Telegraph (page 18) has an article by Britain's Foreign Secretary, William Hague, headed "Human rights are key to our foreign policy".
Mr. Hague does not refer to any specific article in the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr. Hague is being vague.
He states: "We cannot have a foreign policy without a conscience.
"... We have campaigned against forced marriages and lobbied the Government of Iran over death penalty cases, women's rights and religious freedom."
The Rights of Man, advocated by Thomas Paine, has become "human rights" under the influence of Eleanor Roosevelt. "Human rights" have (supposedly) subsumed everyone's "rights". Therefore there is no such thing as "women's rights" any more than there are "men's rights".
Britain doesn't stone anyone to death, but people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.
If there is a problem with Iran it's her potential nuclear weapons capability. Britain's pretensions to moral superiority fool nobody - at least, not in Asia.

When in Trouble or in Doubt, Always give the Cook a Shout

2010-08-27T08:33:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's news is said to be stale buns.
But there was much agonising about the Home Office's figures for 2009.
Net immigration to the UK was 196,000.
Up 35% over the previous year.
362,000 Student Visas were issued.
How many of those students will return to their own countries?
Nothing is done to prevent them staying on.
Instead, all the talk is about a cap for people applying for Working Visas....

"Daft"

2010-08-25T06:17:00.000-07:00

Channel 4's "Dispatches" TV programme yesterday reported dreadful scenes of young people in England. They are the offspring of Pakistanis who have married their first cousins. We were told that more than three-quarters of British Pakistanis marry their first cousins. As a result of such practice over generations there is "a one in four chance" of their children being born with abnormalities.
Many of these first cousins are brought to Britain from Pakistan.
Clearly, male cousins would not be able to settle here if the Conservatives' 1979election promise to close that immigration loophole were in force.
Instead, the Conservatives are keeping their 2010 election promise to impose a "cap" on immigration.
This was described as "daft" by the Radio 4 "Today" programme interviewer on 18 August.
A journalist speaking on "Today" on 21 August said that Britain's strict privacy
laws were introduced through the judges (not Parliament).
Parliament cannot control immigration properly. Judges frequently prevent deportations.
Surely judges can introduce a control that is not "daft".

Religious Extremist

2010-07-30T02:47:00.000-07:00

BBC Radio 4 "Today":-
A vicar in St. Leonards has been found guilty of officiating in 383 marriages. They were to enable people to live in the UK. (A half such marriages - or even more, I believe - would be pointless if the Conservatives had kept their 1979 election promise to end marriage as a means of living in the UK for foreign men.) The vicar's crime? Not publishing the banns of marriage.
Imran Khan, Pakistan's former cricket captain and political leader, believes the threat to the West is not from Pakistan - which has suffered terribly from supporting the West - but from Muslim nationalists in Western countries.
He's not alone.....
By 2050 77 million people are anticipated to live in the UK. (Will such a political entity exist then?) When I was a boy (60 years ago) I asked my Mum why I didn't have any brothers or sisters; she replied that Britain was over-crowded (40 million).
BBC Radio 2 "Jeremy Vine Show":-
A woman justified providing papers for a Gambian through marriage by citing his many good qualities. If she wants to be married to him there's nothing to prevent her from living with him in The Gambia. If he does work that's important to the UK he could get a work visa. (Good qualities do not qualify for work visa status - if they did, why bother with marriage? I've been told I have good qualities - but no one has told me that entitles me to live in someone else's country.)
Jeremy Vine interviewed the Reverend Rose Hudson, Chaplain to the House of Commons.
She was chosen by the Speaker of the House of Commons because as well as being a woman she is also black. Where is the Judge to say the Speaker broke the law (made in the House of Commons)?

Flexible Cap

2010-07-28T02:05:00.000-07:00

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, on a visit to India, was questioned on BBC Radio 4 "Today" about his immigration cap being "flexible" (and also subject to consultation with the Indian Government).
He soon resorted to expressing the need to clamp down on bogus students!
That is a clear admission that his cap is not the answer to the UK's immigration problems (or "issues", as they are called).
Having been issued visas and allowed entry, foreign and Commonwealth people like it so much here they don't want to return to their own countries......
What they do is find someone to marry......
In the run-up to the General Election in May 2010 there was a debate on Channel 4 between the 3 MPs primarily concerned with immigration, in which the then Immigration Minister Phil Woolas claimed that 60,000 people had been deported over the past year. The Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne (now Energy Minister) revealed this to be misleading - since 30,000 hadn't been deported; they had been denied entry.
Maybe most who had been denied entry would concede it was "a fair cop", but there were surely others (like my pen friend in 1965 and my girl friend in 1978) who felt (and maybe still feel) shocked and depressed by the miserable experience of making a long and expensive (return) journey all for nothing.
P.S. At about 1235 Emma rang in to BBC Radio 2's "Jeremy Vine Show" to say how hard it was to get a work visa for India. She works in Goa (which was a Portuguese colony until 1960). "They don't want us there," she said. "It's extremely hard to live there."

Exposing Rights

2010-07-20T01:59:00.000-07:00

An international conference opens today in Kabul.
It provoked much discussion - including an interview with Britain's Foreign Secretary, William Hague - on BBC Radio 4's "Today".
But there was no mention of Al-Qaeda! Whose presence was the reason for NATO's intervention.
Britain wants to talk to the Taliban. But Hilary Clinton doesn't - because of "women's rights".
322 British troops have died in Afghanistan. (And many more wounded.)
"Everyone's right to life" is protected under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Cultural Relativism

2010-07-18T01:40:00.000-07:00

Sunday. The Church of England has just voted in favour of women bishops. The Pope is strongly against the ordination of women. He is vexed by Cultural Relativism; according to which, what is thought to be good in one society does not necessarily hold true in another.
This blogsite argues that irrespective of whether British men can live in other countries through marriage - they can't in Indonesia, for example - that is no good reason why men (from outside the European Union) can use marriage as a means to live and work in the UK.
Comparing China with the UK is like comparing chalk and cheese.
Even suppose 9,000 British students went to China this year - and stayed there permanently - they would be insignificant in comparison with China's overall population.
The Sunday Express reportedly has an article about wreaths for British war victims being made in China.
Today's radio News reports that four British servicemen have just been killed in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, every working day, women with a right to permanent residence in the UK are enabling foreign and Commonwealth men to occupy the UK.
Some Englishwomen are proud that England is the home of feminism, and derive inspiration from struggles of 100 years ago.
But History and Cultural Relativism are also natural bedfellows.........

Students on a Roll

2010-07-16T06:22:00.000-07:00

9,000 Chinese students have applied for university places in the UK. (BBC Radio 4 "Today".) A record number of applications to enter UK universities have been made.
There is nothing to prevent students from outside the EU from taking up permanent residence in the UK.
The obvious method is by finding someone to marry.
It is natural that most foreign students are male.
The last time I was at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London the women's toilet had been moved to the Ground Floor and the men's to the First Floor. Though the Bar, occupied mostly by men, was still on the Ground Floor.
The only Member of Parliament to oppose women-only short-lists for parliamentary candidates was Ann Widdecombe. She asked: "Why do you men roll over?"
If Parliament won't end the concession to foreign men whereby they can live and work in the UK through marriage, then, in the interests of fairness, it should not be beyond the remit of a (female) Judge......

Up (Down?) to the judges

2010-07-12T10:28:00.000-07:00

BBC Radio 4 yesterday had a programme ("File on Four") that exposed the ease with which foreigners can obtain false papers and National Insurance numbers to enable illegals to work in the UK.
People working illegally feel that since they pay taxes they're not doing anything wrong.
More than one-third of the Chinese in London's Chinatown are thought to be working there illegally.
Immigration control was (next to the economy) the most important concern for voters at the May 2010 General Election.
Now the election's over............
........So it's up to the judges......
After all, balance is a symbol of justice.
So it's long overdue for them to act on behalf of the exploited indigenous population.

Conflict Reports

2010-07-09T07:06:00.000-07:00

BBC Radio 2 News reports that the previous (Labor) Government's attempt to prevent foreigners from coming to the UK on bogus student visas has been declared to be unlawful by a judge.
This means that one man (whose decision may depend on what side of the bed he got out of) can defeat democracy.
Why bother with elections?
Who paid the judge?
What a way to earn a living!
(It doesn't bear singing about.)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Where's the judicial process that prosecutes a Government for issuing visas for false purposes?
(The News also said that yet another British serviceman has just been killed in Afghanistan.)

Dunce's Cap

2010-06-26T03:17:00.000-07:00

The details have been announced today (BBC Radio 4 News) of the Government's cap to immigration from non-EU countries. Work visas will be restricted to a little more than 24,000 between now and next April. This will reduce the number of work visas issued by 5%.
Either the visas are necessary or they're not.
If they're necessary there shouldn't be any cap.
If they're not, they shouldn't be issued.
What happens if the Americans take over BP after the cap is imposed? They don't get visas?
If the issue of immigration to the UK is to be taken seriously, the obvious loophole to close is the one by which foreign men can live here through marriage even though they don't have a job.
Foreign husbands could still live here if they have a necessary job.

The State of Britain - Hands, Feet, Chickens, Roll Over & (Cream)

2010-06-17T05:45:00.000-07:00

100 years ago some women in Britain were enjoying (as Mrs. Pankhurst said) the fight for the parliamentary vote.
When the other war came, Mrs. Humphry Ward opposed the proposed transfer of power from one sex to the other (letter in The Times 23 May 1917). She believed it would result in the collapse of the British Empire and bring women into conflict with men - the final outcome of which was in doubt.
With the collapse of the British Empire, the boot of power is on the other foot globally and in the hands of women domestically.
Chickens are coming home to roost.
Following the Second World War these (mostly) took the form of young men from the Indian sub-Continent and the Caribbean coming to these islands.
In May 1979 Mrs. Thatcher was elected to control the controls. Specifically, to end the concession to men through marriage.
This was vigorously opposed by the National Council for Civil Liberties whose General Secretary, Patricia Hewitt (Minister for Women in the last Government), ascribed her success as inevitable as women winning the right to vote and described it as her "most satisfying achievement".
Yesterday the Director of Liberty, as the NCCL is now called, Shami Chakrabarti, won a debate organised by BBC Radio 4's "Woman's Hour". She had proposed Mrs. Pankhurst as the woman who had done most for women in politics.
Back in 1979 I had thought there's not much point in men having the vote.
There can be no doubt about the outcome if native British men roll over.
(The cream are wasted in Afghanistan. [And were in France and Belgium.])

Relationships

2010-06-09T03:21:00.000-07:00

BBC Radio 4's "Today" reports that the Government will introduce English language tests for people applying for visas to marry someone in Britain.
38,000 such visas were issued last year.
The language tests are expected to reduce that by 10%.
A reduction of 50% (or more) could be achieved at a stroke by implementing the Conservatives' 1979 General Election promise (subsequently broken) to prevent foreign and Commonwealth men from using marriage as a means of taking up permanent residence in the UK.
Naturally, that 38,000 is not the end of the matter. They will have children........
Also, The Daily Telegraph reported (3 June, page 11) that 273,445 foreign students were given visas in 2009, a rise of 30% over the previous year. Those students are entitled to work, and they can acquire permanent residence in the UK through marriage. And, by law, like those who have come here for marriage, they are entitled to compete on "equal" terms with native Britons for work and promotion. This, despite the UK having 2.47 million unemployed.
In a separate item on "Today" Lord Prescott argued forcefully that gardens should be built on to provide homes - because of shortage of space...... (So much for "England's green and pleasant land".)
Meanwhile, British soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan with increasing frequency. Today's was with the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment......

Tale of Two Tragedies

2010-06-01T06:11:00.000-07:00

The British Government cannot cap non-European Union migration to the UK any more than BP can cap that wretched leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
What it could do - if it had the will - is restrict foreigners who come to the UK on a temporary basis from becoming permanent residents.
The obvious means by which single people achieve this is by finding someone to marry.
It is primarily young men who have the urge to explore and to occupy other peoples' territory.
For years people from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe (and elsewhere) have been flocking to Calais (sans papiers but with much determination) and other Channel ports so as to live in Britain. They are all young men and boys.....
Women's role is vital - men and women are "Each useless without the other" ("Hiawatha") - but it is natural for women to be homemakers, rather than enablers of young men's predatory ambitions.
England and Wales were occupied by the Romans for 367 years. The Roman legions withdrew 1,600 years ago, in 410 AD.
The present occupation of these islands by young men from outside the EU is a cause of much unhappiness.
Forget that particular cap.
Plug the leaks.
Both of 'em.

Marriage and Migration: Queen's English

2010-05-28T07:25:00.000-07:00

Marriage and Migration: Queen's English

Queen's English

2010-05-27T03:24:00.000-07:00

The Queen opened Parliament on 25 May with a speech on the new Government's policies:
"In the long term we should up-skill British workers so that we do not need as many economic migrants to fill jobs."
"up-skill" = improve the skills of
"migrants" = foreigners
If people go to another country to work, the usual procedure is for them to have work visas which have a time limit.
That does not make them migrants.
To call them migrants up-steps their potential claim to permanent residence.

Equality for All (not a Sop of a Cap)

2010-05-12T05:51:00.000-07:00

Britain has a new Home Secretary, Theresa May. She is also Minister for Women and Equality.
For there to be Equality, there has to be a Minister for Men.
If only there was one, doubtless he would oppose the present law that allows foreign men to take up permanent residence in the UK through the simple expedience of marriage. The law also allows him to compete with native British men for work and promotion on equal terms.
Naturally for every foreign man who benefits, there is a native British man who loses out.
It is pointless the new Government talking about caps on immigration (as a sop to fool the electorate) while this long-standing systemic inequality continues.

Illogical

2010-05-05T04:38:00.000-07:00

"You cannot stop illegal immigration."
Thus the justification by a prominent Liberal Democrat supporter for her party's policy to have an amnesty for people who are in the UK illegally. (BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show, today.)
But you need not have a policy that encourages it. You can try to discourage it and prevent it.
There is no need to give greater consideration to those who break the law than those who abide by it. Which is what an amnesty means.
Besides, it contravenes one of the three pillars of the European Union - which are democracy, human rights and the rule of law. If one pillar goes, the other two are worthless.

"Dishonest" (As if we didn't know)

2010-05-04T08:02:00.000-07:00

"... Labour and the Conservatives are being dishonest with you. They've been running secret amnesties...."
That being so, it's for sure foreigners know it.
The Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg was speaking on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show today about his party's policy to give an amnesty to people who are in the UK illegally.
Nothing (except perhaps control) is more important than the occupation of territory.
The Leaders of all three main parties (and Mrs. Thatcher) deserve to be in the Tower of London.
(Labour gave amnesties in 1975.)

Shanghaied!

2010-05-03T02:38:00.000-07:00

All three Leaders in the Leaders Debates on TV prior to Britain's General Election on 6 May were in agreement that the UK's immigration controls need to be tightened.
The Liberal Democrat Leader used the words "chaos" and "shambolic" to describe the situation. He also wants illegals to become legitimised as British citizens. (!)
The Conservative Leader wants a cap. But he won't give a figure or explain how it would work.
The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said a points system has recently been installed. His party's Government has been in power for 13 years. If a points system is the answer, why wasn't it done earlier?
All three studiously ignored the ongoing practice of people coming to the UK for limited periods and subsequently being entitled to permanent residence. Marriage is the obvious and major example. Then they have children....
Professor Fred Halliday of the London School of Economics has just died. In one of his books he states categorically that the entire population of China is legally entitled to residence in the Home Counties. This, he states, is because their human rights are infringed because China is not a democracy. (!)
The chaos and shambles that are the result of Britain's democracy are self-inflicted and (partly) due to deceit by politicians. In particular, Mrs. Thatcher did not keep her 1979 election promise to end the "concession" to foreign men that enables them to live in the UK through marriage.
So all British citizens should have the "right" to live in China.

That says it all!

2010-04-01T02:40:00.000-07:00

"The right to a family life is not the same as the right to a family life in the United Kingdom."
So said the Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, refering to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (BBC Radio 4 "Today", yesterday.
That's what I've been saying all along.
Mr. Woolas was talking about a convicted Congolese rapist who was planning to marry in order to avoid deportation. Mr. Woolas evaded the question: Why was it he wasn't immediately deported on being released from prison?
Now on that point the Home Office really does lack wisdom, as E.T. said (see previous blog). In other words, April Fools.

"No Man is an Island"

2010-03-28T07:02:00.000-07:00

The actress Emma Thompson supports the Refugee Council, and considers the Home Office stupid. (BBC Radio 4, Desert Island Discs, today.)
She is grateful to a judge who overrode a Home Office decision to return a "refugee" to his own country.
The Home Office is not stupid for wanting to return to their own countries people who exploit a (Cold War) Convention concerning political persecution to enable them to circumvent normal immigration controls.
Immigration officials are in an impossible position if controls are out of control. And they are not in control when there is a thriving industry (lawyers, NGOs, etc.) in opposition to them.
This confused and selfish situation is exacerbated by marriage. We are told it is in decline in the UK, but is increasingly used for immigration purposes. It is one thing for women to be able to live abroad through marriage; that is no normative reason for men to be able to occupy other peoples' territory through marriage.
These are not just academic issues. Much unhappiness ensues.

Renegades

2010-03-10T05:32:00.000-08:00

Migration Watch (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/BriefingPaper/document/128) gives the number of men from India, Pakistan and Bangla Desh who came to Britain for marriage in 2003 as 5,534.
The reason they were able to do this is because Mrs. Thatcher reneged on her election promise of 1979 to restrict immigration to the UK: "We shall end the concession introduced by the Labour government in 1974 to husbands and male fiances."
One reason she reneged is because the European Commission of Human Rights declared
(13 May 1982) the case of 3 women whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK to be admissible.
There is no mention of migration in the European Convention of Human Rights. So there is no legal reason for the EHCR's decision.
I had earlier (10 June 1977) attempted to pre-empt the issue by complaining to the ECHR that the British Government allows foreign and Commonwealth men to live in the UK through marriage even though I (and other Englishmen) often cannot live in their countries through marriage.
The ECHR's justification was "discrimination". But, by taking this stance, the ECHR supports inequality . One reason is that, through this stance, people in transnational marriages have the facility to live in two countries, whereas people in uni-national marriages (outside the European Union), as well as single people, do not have this option.
Furthermore, 255 British servicemen died in and around the Falkland Islands in 1982, and a similar number have recently died in Iraq and Afghanistan. While they were endangering themselves (and their parents grieving), foreign and Commonwealth men were (and are) taking advantage of the Conservative Government's failure to keep their promise of some 30 years ago.
Equality?.......

Inhuman wrongs

2008-03-25T07:08:00.000-07:00

My complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights of 10 June 1977 about foreign and Commonwealth men being allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage even though I (and other Englishmen) often cannot live and work in their countries through marriage was, I believe, exactly the sort of complaint the Council of Europe was set up for.
But the ECHR would not even investigate it.
I was at the time (unhappily) married, but separated.
I had a Japanese girlfriend, Kazuko-san, who left the UK in 1977 when her visa expired. She obtained a job at an embassy in Tokyo, and had a holiday in September 1978. She bought a return ticket to Frankfurt. She then caught the Ostend-Dover ferry where she arrived at 2005 on 25 September. BUT immigration control sent her back to Ostend (Port ref: DE 1626/78) on the 0020 ferry.
Kazuko-san was not only very depressed about this, but had spent a lot of money for nothing.
The underlying basis for human rights is human dignity. It means that or nothing.
When I eventually knew what had happened to her I determined to obtain justice for her. (Fat chance!)
The Home Office (ref: A142251) claimed that she was "not a genuine visitor".
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (Appeal no. TH/36408/78) was refused on 3 May 1979 on the grounds that the immigration officer had not acted improperly. That makes it worse, because it means that Kazuko-san's scandalous treatment was systemic.
I met her in Paris on 8 August 1979 and we arrived in St. Helier on 12 August. The immigration officer rang the Home Office in Croydon and we were duly returned on the hydrofoil back to St. Malo. The immigration officer had said her return ticket was meaningless as "she could easily sell it".
One reason I got married in 1966 was because I never met my Japanese pen friend who came to Britain at my request. She was returned to Japan on 30 May 1965; the immigration officer at Heathrow told her she would have to go back because she did not have a return ticket. (!)
I complained to the European Commission of Human Rights about Kazuko-san. This was investigated (application no. 10105/82). But its decision of 6 March 1984 was: "... no relationship of family life exists between the applicant and his girlfriend and thus no issue under this provision can arise."
I had to leave Japan in 1962 before my visa expired. I arrived back in the UK just as the Commonwealth Immigration Act was coming into force. In November 1962, under the Anglo-Japanese Navigation Agreement, visas were dispensed with between the two countries (for tourism purposes). I had the feeling that Britain was going in two directions at once (closing down/opening up).
But in 1965 I thought: At least she won't need to get a visa.
The UK is abnormal. It is normal for foreigners to go by their visa and/or entry stamp to regulate their presence in a country.
BBC Radio 4's Law in Action told us on 11 March 2008 that 58% of judicial reviews are about immigration (into the UK). The former Conservative Party leader Michael Howard commented that lawyers are neither elected nor accountable.
Radio 5 had a female Member of Parliament from Luton saying that some 3-400 girls a year go missing from schools in Luton. They are believed to be forced into marriages in their home countries. Not all are Asian, she said. Some are Chinese. (!)
She truly said "their home countries". We all know the reason for these marriages. So that young men can occupy the UK. None of which would happen if the Conservatives had honoured their 1979 election promise about this issue, and if the European Commission of Human Rights had determined my 1977 complaints concerning this issue to be admissible.
London's Metro newspaper of 11 March 2008 reported that since 2004 Spain had given amnesties to 700,000 illegal immigrants. Now that they are legal they (and their relatives) can all come here (despite the UK not being signed up to the Shengen Treaty).

Smokescreen

2008-03-21T06:50:00.000-07:00

Cultural relativism is defined (encarta.msn.com/dictionary) as: "judging cultures on their own terms>"
Cultural relativism and cultural positivism are not mutually exclusive.
The main case in favour of the former, however, is that history plays a prominent role in determining a nation's laws.
This means that the current controversy concerning Iraqis who have worked for Britain and now want to live in Britain (as do retired Gurkhas) comes up against issues of cultural relativism.
Therefore the Council of Europe's activity in which it prevailed on the Japanese to allow foreign men to be allowed to live and work in Japan through marriage while at the same time (1982-5) determining that foreign and Commonwealth men should be allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage was contrary to the precepts of cultural relativism. The UK has problems peculiar to herself.
Only the UK had a Commonwealth Immigration Act in 1962 (which was supposed to have resolved the issue of immigration) and subsequently the UK brought in laws that enable foreigners to deprive indigeneous Britons of work and promotion.
Involving Japan does nothing to ameliorate the UK's predicament. Instead, it brings problems to Japan - and that is not a good thing to do.
The UK's immigration laws continue to be clouded by "smoke and mirrors". Involving Japan was a smokescreen to hide the mischief caused by the Council of Europe's actions.
If foreign and Commonwealth men did not take advantage of the UK's (unequal) laws, then there would be room for Iraqis and Gurkhas on this crowded (and sinking) island.

Thoughts for Today

2007-11-01T02:29:00.001-07:00

Commenting on Mrs. Cherie Blair's lecture at Chatham House, London, yesterday, Professor A.C.Grayling disputed (BBC Radio 4's Today programme) the theory that human rights are based on religion - on the grounds that they antedate Christ by 900 years.
That is a non sequitur because Thomas Paine was, as he also remarked, a deist, not a Christian.
Rather, the ancient provenance to which he alluded reinforces my contention that there are no such things as human rights - only good, bad, indifferent or non-existent laws.

Good = Discrimination

2007-10-31T08:07:00.000-07:00

On Thought for Today (BBC Radio 4) today the speaker said that in 1601 Queen Elizabeth said all blackamores should be deported. (He didn't give his source.) He went on to say that when it was announced in church that two Nigerians had acquired British citizenship the whole congregation applauded. He wondered what Queen Elizabeth would have made of it.

The present Queen (I think she's not the Second of that name, since the Union of the Crowns was in 1603) said disapprovingly in her 2004 Christmas Message: "Discrimination still exists!"

She should have said it approvingly. There can be no good without discrimination.

It is not good that foreign and Commonwealth men can use marriage as a means of living and working in the UK. A law that closed that loophole would be a good law. (It doesn't, of course, mean that a woman with the "right" to permanent residence in the UK would not be allowed to live here with her husband - just that marriage is not relevant to his visa/entry stamp.)

My guess is that England's (as distinct from Britain's) Elizabeth would agree with me.

Question for biblical scholars: Do you imagine Jesus would applaud people taking other people's territory?

Secular Concession

2007-10-29T07:41:00.000-07:00

The Conservatives' Leader, David Cameron, spoke in Parliament today about arranged marriages being used as a means of migration to the UK.

They could have been cut by at least half at a stroke if the Conservatives had honoured their 1979 election promise to end the "concession" whereby foreign men can live in the UK through marriage.

They didn't, because of the issue of human rights.

But there's nothing about border controls in human rights legislation.

If the concept of human rights means anything it means human dignity and is either universal (see 'In our hands' - the effectiveness of human rights protection 50 years after the Universal Declaration, Strasbourg, 2-4 September 1998, page 7) or non-existent. As such, it is sometimes said that its underlying basis is in the divine.

The "bible" for the concept is Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, who was a deist. He wasn't a Christian, but he believed in a Supreme Being.

I tend to. I also tend to believe there is no such thing as "rights"; there are only good laws. The argument as to what constitutes a good law is currently being subverted by the word "rights".

Allowing foreign men (the "right") to live in the UK through marriage is not a "right". They could live, with their wives, in their own countries.

If I were a foreigner coming to these islands I would want children both in order to bolster my "right" to residence and to increase the numbers (and political power) of my group.

Being an Englishman, I don't want children....

Beyond Belief

2007-10-28T01:19:00.000-07:00

On the BBC World Services' UK Politics Today programme this morning migration to the UK was discussed by Labour MP Ann Cryer and Conservative MP Mr. Mercer. The former said that 80% of marriages in part of her Keighley constituency was transcontinental, and that in three primary schools (another on stream) 95% of the pupils didn't speak English. She complained about it, but she made no suggestion whatsoever as to what should be done. She could have suggested that the government change the law along the lines of Conservative policy at the time of the 1979 General Election. In which case, those young men who come from Pakistan and Bangladesh to live in her constituency would remain in their own countries.

The Conservatives' policy of 1979 was defeated by the notion of "equality". But even if Englishmen could live in Pakistan and Bangladesh through marriage it would have nothing like the same demographic effect on those countries as does allowing their young men to take up permanent residence in England. Like is not being compared with like.

It's no wonder Bangladeshi men want to come here. If they apply to the Grameen Bank for a loan they won't get one. It lends to women only. If it had been for men only Dr. Yunus would not have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2006.

Nevertheless, Bangladesh rates higher on the Happy Planet Index than the United Kingdom.
Mr. Mercer said there was no unemployment in his Newark constituency, because immigrants were busy building houses for themselves to live in. At least he didn't pretend that it was beneficial to the UK.
A few hours later, BBC Radio 4's Sunday Worship (from Aberystwyth) thanked God for the stability that prevails in Britain.

Discrimination = Good

2007-10-25T01:55:00.000-07:00

William Whitelaw, Mrs. Thatcher's first Home Secretary, stated on 7 April 1978 (Conservative Central Office, 487/78): "All countries are entitled as a mark of their national sovereignty to have their own nationality and immigration laws...

"... [I]n 1969, Mr. Callaghan concluded that marriage was being abused by many young men of working age as a means of entering, working and settling in this country. His words were true then and I believe they are as true today...."

The Conservatives duly promised at the time of the 1979 General Election to "end the concession introduced by the Labour government in 1974 to husbands and male fiances."

The Equal Opportunities Commission vigorously opposed this measure, and its 1978 Policy Statement concludes: "Although nationality law is excluded from the provisions of the Act, the Commission, in order to fufil its statutory duty, must draw to the attention of the government and the public those areas in which discrimination on grounds of sex are prevalent and make recommendations."

It is fair to discriminate. A judge who couldn't discriminate right from wrong or good from bad wouldn't (or shouldn't) be a judge.

In campaigning to enable foreign and Commonwealth men to occupy the UK through marriage the EOC promoted inequality, because:

1. Native British men often cannot live and work abroad through marriage.

2. The UK's "equality" laws entitle foreign men to deprive native British men of work and promotion. (Even though their countries don't have such laws.)

3. The unequal ratio of the sexes of young people (more young men than young women) is exacerbated.

4. Overcrowding is exacerbated. (England is reputedly the most crowded country in the world.)

5. People in multi-national marriages have a choice of countries to live in. This is a great advantage if there is a natural disaster, war, etc.

6. While foreign men are taking advantage of this loophole, British servicemen are dying (and being wounded) in Iraq and Afghanistan (and anywhere else they may be sent).

7. Foreigners like it here or they wouldn't be here. By contrast, many Englishmen (besides myself) have much unhappiness because of this self-inflicted (more accurately, enforced) situation. Few inequalities are worse than that.

8. Native British men do not have the same access to British law as do other people. (My request for legal aid concerning this issue was turned down by the Law Society on 31 January 1979, ref: LW1(G)/14/1/78/12966 Z - though it was not denied to other people.) Nor do Britons have any "rights" regarding immigration to the UK.

On 28 May 1985 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled in the case of Mrs. Abdulaziz, Mrs. Balkandali and Mrs. Cabales that not allowing their husbands to live and work in the UK amounted to sex discrimination.

Inasmuch as sex discrimination is natural (we'd none of us be here without it) it is good.

Shocking

2007-10-24T02:20:00.000-07:00

BBC Radio 4 News reported 23 October that the United Kingdom's population is predicted to increase by 5 million over the next 10 years, and this was described as "shocking" by the Conservatives.

It is the Conservatives who are "shocking". Because in 1979 (under Mrs. Thatcher) the Conservatives did not honour their election promise to end the concession whereby foreign men can live in the UK through marriage. The figure at the time was about 10,000 men a year taking advantage of this immigration loophole. If each of those 10,000 men/year has 2 children, then, if the Conservatives had honoured their pledge, that would mean that these days about 1 million people would now be living somewhere other than the UK.

It is problematic whether the UK exists in 10 years (bearing in mind the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn in 2014). England (the land of the English) will seem misnamed.