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.
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Renegades
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?.......
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?.......
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
Inhuman wrongs
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 in other countries that foreigners are regulated by their visa and/or entry stamp.
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).
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 in other countries that foreigners are regulated by their visa and/or entry stamp.
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).
Friday, 21 March 2008
Smokescreen
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.
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.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
Thoughts for Today
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.
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.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Good = Discrimination
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?
Monday, 29 October 2007
Secular Concession
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....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
