Unequal Britain

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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.