Segregated Britain? The real segregation is this (pt.2)

Prompting the previous post was this piece today in the Daily Mail.

In my view the description ‘white flight’ wrongly ascribes a racial motive for people moving away from areas where ethnic minorities have grown to become a substantial number of people or even a majority.  It is not the race or colour of the skin of people living in an area which is driving this phenomenon.  It is the pronounced cultural differences between members of the community, that have been encouraged and entrenched by the political class as it pursued its own nefarious agenda to dilute and erode the sense of nationhood as part of a wider political agenda.

Although there are plenty of differences within a population that shares the same race, ethnic characteristics, heritage, values and way of life, these were not sufficient to enable the undermining of the nation state, as part of the political objective of developing a world order, where populations that are bound together by their shared similarities and values have strong enough cohesion to reject and resist what the politicians want.

Whenever I have lived overseas I conformed to the norms of the community I became part of.  Many migrants to these shores have done the same thing and where that integration has happened we don’t see this ‘white flight’ phenomenon.  We see relaxed people where aspirations, values and language are the same, resulting in cohesion.

Conversely, where people have come here and transplanted their own cultural norms that are alien to the community, we see a lack of cohesion.  The politicians are to blame for actively seeking and encouraging this.  It comes as no surprise to find the left wing, pro-immigration ‘think tank’ DEMOS claiming that a ‘retreat’ of white Britons from areas where minorities live is limiting cultural integration.  As usual, in a cynical effort to distort the findings and perpetuate the political agenda they have actively been in involved in crafting, they deny the reality which is that the refusal of some migrants to integrate culturally coupled with their desire to create a cultural colony, is actually the cause of increasing segregation.

How many times have we been ordered by the political class to ‘embrace’ the changes being forced on the community, with the implicit assertion that failure to do so denotes you as xenophobic or racist?  How many times have we witnessed neighbourhoods become fragmented because these differences are being aggressively entrenched by an arriving migrant minority that demands acceptance of their alien culture being transplanted into the community?  How many times have we seen the arriving migrants seek out people who share their cultural heritage and values so they do not have to integrate or conform to the societal norms of the host community, resulting in the ghetto phenomenon?  How many times, when this has happened, have we then been instructed by the political class to ‘celebrate’ this, despite the lack of consent for the transformation and the unwelcome and undesired impacts this has on the community?  Why is it acceptable for an aggressive cultural supremacy to be implemented by an arriving migrant population, yet any attempt to preserve the cultural norms of the host community is considered wrong and unacceptable?

What has never made stood up to any scrutiny is the notion that migrants want to come here for a better life, when on arrival they do all they can to maintain the same life they supposedly sought to leave behind them in their home country.  It is entirely understandable that people draw the conclusion the new arrivals have not come to enrich our community and become part of what made this country attractive in the first place, as the political class claims, but only to take economic advantage of what has been built up over generations while rejecting our values, language and norms.

The blame for this ‘white flight’ which is so exercising the politicians, and the breakdown in community cohesion which suits their aims, has to be firmly laid at the door of the concept of multiculturalism, advanced by the likes of DEMOS, the Labour party, and legions of politicians across Europe.

Having a multiethnic community is fine and can work wonderfully well.  Often it is integrated migrants who are most vocal alongside us in opposing the contemptible behaviour of the political class as it seeks to dismantle what made this country attractive and proud in the first place.  Where people come together as a community regardless of colour and race we do not see the problems that arise in areas where part of the community chooses to emphasise and reinforce pronounced differences and seeks separation from the host community due to a desire for their imported culture to have supremacy – and seeks to strengthen that separation by bringing more people from their country of origin to build a rival community.

It is not a racial or colour issue, it is to do with culture.  The political class actively pursued this without seeking the consent of the British people.  If I had refused to conform to the cultural norms of my hosts overseas I would not have been welcome and encouraged to leave.  So why is it wrong for Britons to apply the same conditions  and make clear to migrants that if they will not conform to our norms and be part of an integrated community they have no place living here?  Oh yes, because the political class says so, as it doesn’t fit in with their objectives.

Don’t be angry and frustrated with those who have been able to come here and build a rival community steeped in their own culture and values.  Be angry and frustrated with the political class that allowed it, encouraged it, stamped on dissent against it, and sought to stigmatise those who refused to compromise their principles – and take action against them.

The real segregation in this country is that between the political class and bureaucrats, and we ordinary people who they abuse and treat with contempt.

‘Make me the prime minister and I will get you the job’

So said Ed Miliband, to a disgruntled unemployed man in Lancashire whose frustration at the effects of Labour’s open-door immigration led him to say of politicians, ‘You’re all full of shit.’

Miliband told the man that employers undercutting wages – rather than immigration – was the cause of the problem.

This is the Ed Miliband whose supporters never tire of telling us he has a Masters degree in Economics from the LSE.  Yet with that answer he demonstrates that he fails to grasp the most basic impact on price of an increase in supply, in this case a dramatic increase in the supply of unskilled and semi skilled labour.

Businesses exist to make money for their owners in return for the supply of goods or services, and the greatest challenge for most businesses is controlling their costs.

However, the fetish of politicians and bureaucrats for creating ever more regulation, combined with the financial impacts of government policy at EU and national level, the costs associated with running a business have been continually increasing.  So when an opportunity to reduce labour costs – typically one of the biggest expenditures in small and medium businesses – presents itself, why wouldn’t a business hire the migrant worker who is prepared to work for a lower rate?

Miliband supported the influx of hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who increased the supply of cheap labour.  Miliband supported the scandalous borrowing splurge that has resulted in more pressure on tax revenues to service the spirralling debt.  Miliband supported and also directly implemented policies that have increased the costs of running a business.

Yet despite all this, Miliband has the temerity to blame employers for that unemployed Lancastrian being out of work and brazenly promises that if he is made Prime Minister he will get that poor man a job – presumably by further increasing the size of the unproductive public sector, thus further adding to pressure to increase the tax revenues taken from the wealth creating private sector.

That Lancastrian man was then schmoozed and flattered by a deceitful, delusional hypocrite to the point he exchanged a handshake with him.  That man was right the first time.  Miliband and his ilk are full of shit.

Common sense immigration

The Barclay Brother Beano has turned its attention to comments about immigration, in relation to the UK’s economic needs, made by the former chief executive of Autonomy, Mike Lynch.

It is one of those pieces where a journalist has given a platform to a statement of the bloody obvious. Well, obvious to intelligent people outside of our pisspoor excuse for a government in Westminster, led by our supreme government in Brussels.

Setting aside the issues Lynch’s comments raise about the state of education and training in this country, the logic in his comments is clear and unarguable, identifying what is good for our economic and competitive prospects.  However, the reality of our condition sees that the government has clamped down on the opportunities to live and work in the UK for exactly the kind of highly skilled migrants Lynch correctly identifies as being beneficial to our economy and society.

Meanwhile, unskilled labour or marginal value floods here from across the European Union.  Poorly educated – often uneducated – family members of British citizens of south Asian origin are brought here under marriage and family criteria, despite lacking English language ability and frequently having no intention of developing any or integrating into our society and culture, adding little or no value to this country due to the limited scope of what they can do.  And economic migrants posing as asylum seekers among the hundreds of thousands who have arrived here, by-passing safe havens en route, seep into the black economy in low skill, low paid work outside of tax and National Insurance, being exploited by unscrupulous gang masters while making full use of public services paid for by the rest of us, allowed to stay here after publicly funded legal support in appeals.

The government’s approach to dealing with migration is irrational and defies reason.  The tough line being taken with exactly the sort of people this country would benefit from welcoming and hosting is what should be taken with those who are currently being soft soaped and coddled, instead of being shown the door.  It is little wonder our competitiveness is declining while the welfare budget continues to expand, impoverishing this country and wasting the contribution made by the productive workers and wealth creators.

The adoption of the European-style social model is unravelling the fabric of this nation, sowing discord and discontent among the less well off who suffer most from the consequences of the state’s wrong headed approach and saddling this country with liabilities that cannot possibly be funded – eroding the services and provisions millions expected to be able to draw upon after working hard and contributing to the system all their lives.

Until a government grasps the nettle on this subject immigration will remain a devisive issue.  The unfounded resentment of those foreigners who do add value to this country will continue to grow, fuelled by behaviour of those who come here to be net recipients rather than producers.

Government not taking immigration seriously

One of my pet loathings of parliamentarians is the techniques some of them use to avoid answering a question that could cause them embarrassment and stir anger among voters.

The latest example of this can be seen in a written answer to a question asked about the use of the European Convention on Human Rights to avoid legal removal from the UK.

Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportations from the UK did not proceed as a consequence of the application of the provisions of (a) Article 3 and (b) Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in each year since 2005; and if she will make a statement.

Damian Green: In responding to this question, we have assumed ‘deportations’ to mean ‘removals’.

The UK Border Agency does not record this information centrally. Providing a breakdown of specific reasons for removals not to be pursued, either at initial decision stage or following a successful appeal, can only be determined by investigating individual case files which would incur a disproportionate cost.

If this country takes immigration matters seriously then this is exactly the kind of information the Home Office Department should be recording centrally. Perhaps there was a conscious decision made not to record this information centrally because it would highlight the systemic failures within the Home Department and the reveal the true extent of ECHR interference in Britain’s ability to determine who may reside here.

What is also interesting is the call for a statement has been completely ignored. Despite immigration being one of the top three issues for voters at the last election, the government has no interest in upholding our laws, dealing with offenders correctly or being held to account on the subject.

The Labour opposition do not care about this issue. After all, it was they who deliberately opened up this country’s borders in the first place to make the UK more multicultural and diverse.  The Lib Dems want a world without borders run by the UN so they don’t care.  So that leaves the mainstream media, who are now permanently asleep at the wheel and would not look at this issue unless it landed on their desk in the form of a press release; and bloggers increasingly embarrass the media by uncovering such an issue and probing at it until someone prominent adopts it as a problem in need of remedy – at which point the media arrives to present the story as their own exclusive.

Immigration caps, idiocy, and highly skilled workers

Sometimes the sheer stupidity of the political class and the ignorance of the media combines to stoke the anger and frustration of people for whom common sense and intelligence are standard qualities, not optional extras. Here we have the moronic Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition government wanting to appear tough on immigration. But in so doing demonstating their complete lack of suitability to govern, because the rules they have in place fuel unnecessary speculative migration of people without job offers and restrict the migration of people actually sought by employers.

The Observer reports this morning that big businesses are welcoming news from the government that some transfers of highly skilled workers will be excluded from immigration caps:

Just 50 people. That’s how many foreign workers PricewaterhouseCoopers, which employs 18,000 UK staff, will be allowed to bring into Britain this year. And the accountancy firm is not happy.

PwC is not alone. Across the UK, banks, law firms, carmakers and industrial companies have been agitating vigorously about the coalition’s draconian crackdown on the immigration of highly skilled staff.

This week, they thought they glimpsed a chink of light. The home secretary, Theresa May, announced on Friday that certain international transfers of existing employees within companies will be excluded from quotas placed on the number of overseas hires for big businesses. But the Observer has learned that this exemption on “intra-company” visas is likely to be tightly limited…

The government is restricting intra-company staff transfers into the UK and capping the number of migrants companies can offer jobs to under the points-based system Tier 2 (Skilled Worker) criteria, yet continuing to operate the Tier 1 (General) criteria where migrants do not need to have a job offer (only to hold particular qualifications or job titles) to be granted a visa. This is why we see highly skilled workers coming here (or remaining here from the previous Highly Skilled Migrant programme) without a skilled job or income and taking up menial work such as fruit and vegetable picking, waiting at tables and office cleaning.

Migrants coming to the UK under Tier 1 of the points-based system reduce the number of people that can come here under Tier 2 – yet Tier 2 migrants are the very people companies have identified as being beneficial to their operations and adding value to their business. Nowhere in the Observer piece is there any mention of this. Nor is there any mention of the impact this has when unskilled workers from acrosss the EU come here without restriction and find themselves competing not only with British nationals but with Tier 1 highly skilled migrants for casual work.

Not only have we lost control of our borders thanks to EU membership, our government is actually stoking the problem of migrants coming here without any job arrangements by maintaining Tier 1 of the points based system, which results in an oversupply in the labour market. Now let the coalition say again they are serious about reducing immigration. Their claim is fallacious. Thus are we ill served.

Ignore Special Immigration Appeals Commission – remove Abu Hamza’s passport

We’re stuck with him. That is the decision of the morons on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission – it would be more accurately described as the Special Immigration Abettor’s Commission – who say that Abu Hamza al-Masri cannot be stripped of his British passport and therefore deported.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the government to take decisive action to put this right. They will roll over as they always do at the first sound of the words ‘Rights, Directive, Judgement, European’.

Surprise, surprise, it is the Human Rights Act once again that comes leaping to the defence of another lawbreaking alien who hates this country and works actively to do it harm, yet cravenly seeks the protection its liberal laws provide. Despite there being no proof that Egypt has withdrawn Hamza’s citizenship, the Commission has decided it is so and said Hamza must keep the British citizenship he acquired through marriage, or else he would become stateless.

So bloody what?

Perhaps if we showed some guts and acted in our own interests the spiteful hate mongers who come to this country and are determined to attack it at every turn would learn there are consequences for their actions and stay away. This bleeding heart decision is a travesty and exposes how we have been weakened by the community of activists judges and campaigners who pontificate about moral superiority and are loathe to take action against those who mean us harm.

As it is Abu Hamza is still fighting a case in the European Court of Human Rights to prevent deportation to the United States for investigation into alleged terror offences. No doubt the left wing academics who make up that illegitimate kangaroo court will fall over themselves to rule that he must not face justice and must stay in Britain, taking up a prison cell or sponging off the welfare state.

Abu Hamza al-Masri and his ilk will be laughing like drains at the stupidity of these moronic commissioners whose hand wringing further undermines the interests of this nation. The man is Egyptian. His own country despises him and refused him a new passport, but it has never stated that his citizenship has been revoked. We should test it by putting his oversized, taxpayer subsidised arse on a plane to Cairo and permanently refusing him entry to this country again.

If the Egyptians don’t want Hamza, for a few hundred dollars they can strap him into seat on a plane bound for Washington where the Americans are very eager to play host to him. In fact, a phone call to the US Embassy would probably see a transport aircraft divert to Egypt to pick him up and save Egyptian taxpayers the trouble of sending him packing.

Hypocritical little chancer?

Imagine the suprise some people must feel upon discovering Gamu Nhengu, who last week said ‘A firing squad’s waiting for us’ in Zimbabwe, has been visiting the country to take holidays as recently as a couple of years ago.

Now why would someone, supposedly fleeing persecution and claiming to be at risk of death at the hands of the Mugabe regime, present themselves voluntarily in that country? Having returned there unmolested and been able to travel back to the UK at will, it seems clear the claim of Nokuthula Ngazana to be allowed leave to remain in the UK is completely unjustified.

All too often we see economic migrants concoct false stories to con the British immigration authorities. It would be a travesty if following this revelation Mrs Ngazana and her family are granted leave to remain. It would also be a travesty if a single penny of taxpayers’ money finds its way to the well heeled legal team arguing to keep Gamu and her family in the UK.

For all the emotional blackmail and tearjerking sob stories spun to the media, it seems this is just another migrant family weaving a web of lies in an attempt to get around clear visa rules they agreed to. It is time they packed their bags and we wished them farewell.

Britain’s slow self destruction – Binyam Mohamed allowed to live in UK

Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed, a cause célèbre of the BBC because of his story of torture under interrogation, has been granted permanent residency in Britain.

Despite possessing a story about his movements so full of holes a colander is watertight in comparison, and despite trying to return to Britain (where he was already seeking asylum) from an extended trip to the heroin and jihadist training capital of the world (Afghanistan and Pakistan) supposedly in order to get off drugs (stop laughing a the back) he attempted to use a forged passport (although allowed into Britain with his own). Now despite this questionable activity this Ethiopian Islamist has been granted permission to remain permanently in the UK.

But for a tiny molecule of common sense from a judge, we would not even know about this decision as Binyam Mohamed’s legally aided team of lawyers sought an injunction to keep the decision secret from the British public.

What kind of insane desire to self destruct leads a country to give people, who offer nothing but a threat to its citizens, the right to live among them?

Committing a criminal act as serious as using a false passport to enter Britain should have instantly excluded Binyam Mohamed’s existing asylum claim. It raises serious questions about what his intentions were, something that has never been explained. With Afghanistan already being in a state of sustained conflict in 2o02, Mohamed’s reasoning for going there in the first place doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The media focus on his claims of UK complicity in his alleged torture while in US custody has ensured Mohamed’s own actions have largely been ignored.

In just about every civilised country the first responsibility and priority of a government is the protection of its citizens. In Britain the protection of the citizenry comes some way down the priority list. Instead in Britain the slavish adherence to nonsensical human rights laws and the pervasive influence of the sopping wet liberal bleeding heart guilt mongers, who feel they must atone daily for our history of colonialism and further their desire to sweep away national borders, sees decisions such as this handed down on a regular basis.

Make no mistake, these decisions are made by an out of touch elite that can afford to live well insulated from the effects of those decisions. An out of touch elite that views Britain as a small, insignificant country with delusions of power and influence that is crass and insulting to their supposedly enlightened and internationalist worldview.

So it is that Britain continues to self destruct. So it is that the Britain of just two generations ago, where the population was bound by common values and identity, is transformed into a haven for the world’s flotsam and jetsom – many of whom despise our values and have no interest in sharing our identity. So it is that Britain leaves itself wide open to attack from those extremists who seek to speed our destruction, while the authorities sweep away the privacy and rights of the host population.

Such insanity cannot be allowed to continue. But our political class is not interested in addressing these concerns because what matters to us does not matter to them. As such we will continue to be exposed to avoidable risks. So we can expect to see more examples of this insanity as Britain slowly unspools and loses all vestiges of what defined it as a sovereign nation.

Gamu – now the emotional blackmail starts

Any hope that the immigration case of Nokuthula Ngazana – mother of X Factor contestant Gamu Nhengu – would remain a simple visa issue has evaporated with a News of the World article where Gamu pleads:

A firing squad’s waiting for us.

Gamu, photographed in a series of tearful poses, goes on to say that:

“I’ve been in the public eye now and people there know I’ve fled Mugabe’s regime. They will punish us if we go back. They’re going to know where we are.

“We’re going to be very unsafe. People have already been approaching our family members.

“We think they could be working for Mugabe. And we know how brutal he can be. I would be in danger, it’s blatantly obvious. My family would be in danger.”

Those with a careful eye will have already noted in the media the story of how Gamu and her siblings ended up in the UK. There was never any suggestion that Gamu was brought to the UK to flee Mugabe’s regime. The mother went to Scotland on a visa in search of a former lover, took a job as a nurse and undertook a degree, calling for the children to join her. She didn’t come to the UK seeking asylum and when her visa expired she merely asked for leave to remain. Again, there was no application for asylum or indication of any threat to the family. As such the family has no right to remain in the UK.

Today, threatened with repatriation because the request for leave to remain was turned down, Gamu makes her heart-wrenching appeal to be allowed to stay employing the emotive comments noted above. It is emotional blackmail and it is deeply cynical.

No doubt the lawyers acting for the family and the myriad of immigrant support groups who try to circumvent our immigration rules have had a hand in crafting this new approach. But that is the way the game is played now. If ‘Reason A’ fails, change your story and present ‘Reason B’. If that fails, some kindly campaigner will help you generate ‘Reason C’ and assist you in keeping up the pressure until the authorities finally cave in for a quiet life and add to our growing immigrant population.

What is the point of issuing visas to people like Nokuthula Ngazana when they abuse their temporary right to stay and engineer a permanent relocation?

This is not personal, it is just an frustrated call to stop the system being so obviously abused in this way. Cases like these happen every day and this has only been thrust into the public eye because Gamu was a popular contestant in a TV singing show. It would be wrong for the authorities to cave in to such a cynical and manipulative campaign to make an exception and set aside the rules.

Gamu Nhengu’s family has no right to remain in Britain

It is no suprise to see the ‘great unthinking’ and the terminally ignorant serial campaigners who join every passing bandwagon, jumping up and down demanding that Nokuthula Ngazana and her family – including X Factor contestant Gamu Nhengu – be allowed to remain in Britain.

It took nanoseconds for some of these people to start screaming allegations of racism in the treatment of Mrs Ngazana.  It only took a few moments more for the misplaced emotional blackmail attempts to begin, decrying what an injustice it would be to send poor Gamu and her family back to Zimbabwe.  They argue that compassion demands the family be allowed to stay in Britain because of the conditions in Zimbabwe and the fact it has a vile dictator as its head of state.

What is clear is that to these people the facts do not matter.  The fact is Gamu Nhengu’s mother chose to come to Britain to study for a nursing degree and post degree experience in that field. She didn’t come here as a desperate refugee seeking asylum from Mugabe’s despotic rule in a failing country, but on a student visa to undertake an educational course. The terms of the visa were clear, at the end of the alloted time, she would have to return to her home country with her family.

Mrs Ngazana made a conscious decision to study here and by securing the visa knew, understood and agreed that when it expired she would return to Zimbabwe. She knew her family would have to be uprooted and leave behind what they had come to know in their young lives. She had already uprooted them once to bring them to Britain to further her education.

I have no idea who funded the costs of Mrs Ngazana’s study, her living expenses, cost of accomodation and the cost of bringing up her children. What does seem clear from her representatives is that she was advised by the Inland Revenue that she was entitled to claim Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit and that it was aware of her immigration status. This despite the British public repeatedly being told by government ministers that immigrants and those coming here as students are not entitled to benefits funded by the taxpayer. But that is a matter for another time. The issue here is whether a student should be allowed to change their status with no good reason to remain in this country – breaking the terms of the visa that was issued to them.

The matter is clear cut. So it is with simmering anger I learn this morning that solicitors representing Mrs Ngazana (costs being picked up by whom?) are seeking a judicial review (taxpayers funding the cost of defending the case and the court costs) in an attempt to allow the family to remain here, thus undermining the concept of visa terms and bypassing correct immigration processes. The only reason this is happening is that Gamu has a pretty voice and was a popular contestant on a television show created to make its star – Simon Cowell – richer still.

This case sums up the decay in this country of ours. Abandoned values, the blurring of right and wrong, falling respect for the law, failure to follow the rules and the moronic cult of celebrity are combined here to present us with a story for the dumbed down media to milk for all it’s worth.

Had Mrs Ngazana come here seeking protection from persecution – real not imagined – I would have no qualms about allowing her to remain. If she had come here because of the fear of revenge for opposing the Mugabe regime, no problem. But she didn’t. She came here in the knowledge is was on a temporary basis to gain a qualification. That has been achieved and it is time for her to go home. It is time Mrs Ngazana and her new found representatives and bandwagon of hangers on who are already looking for the next bandwagon to hitch themselves to, understood and accepted that and stopped wasting taxpayers’ money in an effort to circumvent the rules she signed up to.

Only in Britain

What never ceases to amaze is just how idiotic people described as learned can be.  The Home Office policy which allows for foreign nationals who have been refused permission to remain in Britain to be deported quickly after the decision, has been struck down by another activist judge, Mr Justice Silber.

So what we have in Britain now is a constraint that makes it illegal to quickly deport people who are have been deemed to be present in this country illegally.

Despite having gone through the immigration process and legal system and having been refused permission to stay, the judiciary is preventing people with no right to remain here from being sent home – in order to provide them with the opportunity to continue fighting against the decision at taxpayer expense, until some other judge decides to give them indefinite leave to remain in this country.

The lawyers make a nice pile of cash, the legal aid budget is stretched to breaking point and someone without grounds to come here as an asylum seeker is allowed to stay regardless.  Just to ensure the game continues to be played in the same way, any discussion about immigration is shut down by a political class that is incapable of anything beyond affording itself more control over our lives and engaging in gesture politics.

Lib Dems misrepresent the immigration 14 year rule

On The Politics Show moments ago Liberal Democrat, Ed Davey, defended that party’s proposed amnesty for people who have broken the law by entering Britain illegally or staying beyond the length of their visa conditions. He then went on to claim that both Labour and the Conservatives also support an amnesty for illegal immigrants, but just won’t talk about it.

Liberal Democrats stand out even from other politicians for their sheer disssembling deviousness, so it seems only proper to check their claim about other parties’ support for this so called 14 year rule.  The most up to date details of the 14 year rule can be found on the Migration Expert website, but what is clear is the rule is not inspired by party politics.  The site explains on Friday, 24 April 2009 that:

A person’s application for Indefinite Leave to Remain (permanent residence) on the basis of 14 years residence cannot be refused because he/she has lived in the UK ‘unlawfully’ or ‘worked unlawfully’, according to a recent decision by the Court of Appeal.

Moreover, even if someone has obtained false identity documents in order to obtain work where the person has no right to work, it should not be held against him/her.

The Home Office recognized that applicants under the rule, if they were to be successful, must be expected to have worked unlawfully for the majority of their time here. The Court said that the reasons for obtaining false identity documents should be carefully considered, i.e., if it is intended to commit financial fraud (which is serious) or merely to obtain work (which is less serious).

In this case, the applicant was a 50-year-old Bangladeshi national who arrived in the UK in 1991 on a visitor’s visa. In 2006, he applied for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK on the ground of 14-year long residence, relying on the Immigration Rules.

The rule in question provides that the requirements for ILR on the ground of long residence includes two main factors: the applicant must have lived in the UK for a continuous 14 year period, and, having regard to the public interest, there are no reasons why it would be undesirable for the applicant to be given ILR on the ground of long residence, taking into account his age, strength of connections in the UK and his personal history, amongst others.

The Court of Appeal interpreted the rule as specifically directed to people who had managed to stay in the UK for 14 years or more without lawful authority, and was, therefore, in effect an amnesty clause. This is because, in every such case, the nature of the applicant’s stay was unlawful and its extent was 14 years or more.

The Court of Appeal found that the whole purpose of the 14 year rule (by which illegal immigrants can eventually seek to legalise their status after 14 continuous years residence in the UK) would be undermined if too strict an approach was followed in relation to the public policy exemptions.

Clearly the issue is not as cut and dried as Ed Davey tries to make out.  It also explains why Davey said that until recently William Hague was apparently unaware of the rule.  In all honesty it is hard for somone to support something they are unaware of.  If the Liberal Democrats were honest they would not present this 14 year rule as if it was something debated in Parliament, voted upon and enshrined in legislation.  It wasn’t.  Instead, as you can see above, it is another example of judicial activism that, incredibly, sets aside the illegality of someone’s behaviour and seeks to reward them for having got away with a criminal act.  This is another example of judges writing the law rather than simply enforcing it and it underlines the emasculation of Parliament.

The Lib Dems have blatantly misrepresented the situation.  They claim that under the Conservatives while Michael Howard was Home Secretary, thousands of people were given official status, and describe that as effectively an amnesty.  Same also for Jack Straw under the Labour government.  But there is a big difference between those actions and what Nick Clegg is proposing.  Those people granted leave to remain had applied for asylum, failed, but were allowed to stay.  That is very different to people arriving here, staying off the immigration radar, entering the black economy and attempting to remain having made no attempt to regularise their status.  People applying for asylum are not the same as illegal immigrants.  They are not breaking the law if they arrive and follow due process, unless of course their claim is bogus and fallacious.

Granting failed asylum seekers leave to remain is, in my opinion, the wrong thing to do and should never have happened. But it is in no way an amnesty.  An amnesty is the forgiving of an illegal act and applying for asylum is not an illegal act.  What the Lib Dems are proposing is an amnesty in the true meaning of the word.  It is not about failed asylum seekers; it is targeted at illegal immigrants, people who made a conscious decision to stay here beyond their visa permission, or who came here for economic reasons and hope to benefit from their law breaking.  Yet again we see deliberate distortion and misrepresentation from the Liberal Democrats.

The Nick Clegg / Lib Dem approach to immigration

With The Times reporting that Nick Clegg is now the most popular party leader since Winston Churchill – no, really – perhaps it’s a good time to focus on some of Clegg’s Liberal Democrat thinking, on issues that voters say is of importance to them.

MigrationWatchUK is generally accepted as the most authoratative and independent organisation focusing on matters of immigration as it impacts the UK. Here is the MigrationWatchUK assessment of the Liberal Democract manifesto commitments regarding immigration:

‘This is immigration with no limits whatsoever but spiced up with two unworkable proposals – a regional immigration policy that would be impossible to enforce and an amnesty that is certain to encourage still further illegal immigration. The LibDems are treating the public as if they were fools.’

Given the opinion poll results since the Leaders’ Debate, perhaps it would be fair to argue a lot of the public are indeed fools to fall for media hype and that the Lib Dems are justified in treating them as such with completely idiotic policy proposals.

Phil Woolas skewered over immigration statistic denial

Labour Borders and Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, claimed on yesterday’s Daily Politics show that immigration statistics, showing the increase of foreign born workers was only slightly smaller than the increase in the number of jobs that have been created while Labour has been in office, was an example of double counting and a statistical trick.  He gave an analogy that if 50,000 fans attend an Arsenal match in each of ten games, the number of people watching Arsenal would not be 500,000 because most of those going would have attended each game.

However on the programme today, Stephen Timms – Labour’s Financial Secretary to the Treasury – was forced into accepting that a labour force snapshot of working age individuals as issued by the Office for National Statistics in respose to a request from The Spectator magazine, could not have been double counting at all because it was the equivalent of a snapshot of the attendance at just one game.  Therefore by definition it shows that of 1.7 million jobs created, 1.67 million have indeed been filled by migrant workers.

Labour’s mendacious dishonesty and fraudulent abuse of statistics is finally starting to be recognised for what it is, a concerted attempt to deceive the electorate, hide incompetence and cover up Labour’s deliberate effort to transform the social fabric of this country for political reasons.  One day, two Labour flip flops.  Lord Mandelson will be so pleased…

Immigration is a topic of major importance to voters.  This is the kind of topic the main parties should be forced to talk about, but have tried desperately to avoid referring to in any detail regarding their approach to migration and what they will do to address the wishes of voters to significantly reduce the net influx of migrants.  But despite this story the main parties are only fighting over the numbers.  There is nothing about restoring the UK’s control over its own borders, sacrified as part of the price of being members of the EU.  Thus are we so ill served by the whole political class.  Despite this, they still come begging for our votes.  That takes a special kind of arrogance.