"... 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.)
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Monday, 3 May 2010
Shanghaied!
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.
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.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
That says it all!
"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.
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.
Sunday, 28 March 2010
"No Man is an Island"
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
