How it Works5 mins ago
Immigration alert.
6 Answers
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/97168 /Immigrant-housing-alert-
The MP for Birkenhead said: "For many years, probably a generation, immigration has been a no-go area to British politics. Those who have raised the subject have been insulted, abused and, all too often, silenced."
How very true this has been, but now we are more free to have open debate on this subject, have we now left it too late?
There is at the moment an all out debate on the issue of the Gurkhas being prevented from taking up residence in the UK.
But the fact remains we do not have room for them. It does not only stop at the individual Gurkha but their families also will follow, and if we allow one in everyone will have the right also.
Serving members who live here should of course have every right to remain here and draw on any of the benefits that are available to everyone else.
But those that live in Nepal, should remain in their own country. Just because they fought on the Allies side during WW2 should make no difference. If this was the criteria for seeking admission into the UK, then almost every nation who fought on our side would be allowed the right to reside here, and that situation would be untenable.
The MP for Birkenhead said: "For many years, probably a generation, immigration has been a no-go area to British politics. Those who have raised the subject have been insulted, abused and, all too often, silenced."
How very true this has been, but now we are more free to have open debate on this subject, have we now left it too late?
There is at the moment an all out debate on the issue of the Gurkhas being prevented from taking up residence in the UK.
But the fact remains we do not have room for them. It does not only stop at the individual Gurkha but their families also will follow, and if we allow one in everyone will have the right also.
Serving members who live here should of course have every right to remain here and draw on any of the benefits that are available to everyone else.
But those that live in Nepal, should remain in their own country. Just because they fought on the Allies side during WW2 should make no difference. If this was the criteria for seeking admission into the UK, then almost every nation who fought on our side would be allowed the right to reside here, and that situation would be untenable.
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We were discussing this very subject at a dinner party the other week. It wasn't until the black servants delivered the first course, that we realised the extent of the problem. Once some of the guests got over their initial surprise, the conversation began to flow. It then became clear that everyone enjoys meeting people from different cultures and that immigration was a good way of achieving this. I think it leads to a happy well balanced society.
It shows how bad the immigration problem has become when people at Calais are risking their lives hanging under vehicles, shutting themselves in closed tankers and desparate other measures just to reach the UK. We were once told they were seeking jobs but that is a lie because the jobs no longer exist. The UK border agency is fighting an uphill battle and losing at the moment with the asylum and human rights laws taking precedence. What is being done to change these laws? Absolutely nothing! So the problem will exacerbate until we have a civil war.
-- answer removed --
AOG is being disingenuous.
These people did not fight on the Allies side the fought In the British army
People like 10,000 of the Carribean regiment who did mine clearance in Suez in WWII.
People like the 14th Army which comprised of nearly a million men, troops from India and West Africa.
Good enough to fight for us, but it seems not good enough to live next door
These people did not fight on the Allies side the fought In the British army
People like 10,000 of the Carribean regiment who did mine clearance in Suez in WWII.
People like the 14th Army which comprised of nearly a million men, troops from India and West Africa.
Good enough to fight for us, but it seems not good enough to live next door
The initial problem is not the Human Rights legislation, fender. The root of this problem is that it is so much more attractive for foreigners to take up residence here than it is elsewhere. The main attraction is undoubtedly the benefits and welfare system which the UK makes available to them. Couple this with the extremely small chance of being forced to leave if permission to settle is not granted and you have the recipe.
Anybody who thinks this is not true (and the most notable opponent to this view is the Rt. Hon. Phil Woolas, MP, the so-called immigration minister) needs only to hear what the would-be immigrants say when they are asked why they are so desperate to reach the UK.
The Human Rights legislation simply makes it that much more difficult to remove them once they are here. Among other things, this legislation prevents the death penalty being imposed, prevents unfair trials and prevents torture (all of which were prevented in the UK long before the Human Rights Act was passed). However, because it is deliberately vaguely drafted, it has been interpreted that to deport anybody to countries which still adopt such practices, the UK is in breach of the HR Act. It does not, however, explain why migrants we know to have arrived illegally from France (a �safe� country) cannot be returned there forthwith when they are discovered. Instead they are given travel instructions to the Home Office�s establishment in Croydon and the address of their chosen local council�s housing department.
The UK will remain the prime goal for immigrants whilst it remains so attractive and the country will not have a say over who does and does not settle here whilst we have a gold-plated Human Rights Act in force.
Anybody who thinks this is not true (and the most notable opponent to this view is the Rt. Hon. Phil Woolas, MP, the so-called immigration minister) needs only to hear what the would-be immigrants say when they are asked why they are so desperate to reach the UK.
The Human Rights legislation simply makes it that much more difficult to remove them once they are here. Among other things, this legislation prevents the death penalty being imposed, prevents unfair trials and prevents torture (all of which were prevented in the UK long before the Human Rights Act was passed). However, because it is deliberately vaguely drafted, it has been interpreted that to deport anybody to countries which still adopt such practices, the UK is in breach of the HR Act. It does not, however, explain why migrants we know to have arrived illegally from France (a �safe� country) cannot be returned there forthwith when they are discovered. Instead they are given travel instructions to the Home Office�s establishment in Croydon and the address of their chosen local council�s housing department.
The UK will remain the prime goal for immigrants whilst it remains so attractive and the country will not have a say over who does and does not settle here whilst we have a gold-plated Human Rights Act in force.
1 to 6 of 6
