ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

Amnesty / 10&14 yrs / When the draft immi bill takes eff

General UK immigration & work permits; don't post job search or family related topics!

Please use this section of the board if there is no specific section for your query.

Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator

Locked
RobinLondon
Member of Standing
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: SE London

Amnesty / 10&14 yrs / When the draft immi bill takes eff

Post by RobinLondon » Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:46 am

Just some small notes from having read the material. Please keep in mind that all of these published statements by the Home Office are drafts, and may change in measures both great and small before taking effect. Moreover, everything that I have written below is my own take on what I have read and should not categorically be taken as Gospel by any account.

Anmesty:

It looks like a general amnesty is off the cards. This is discussed on page 3 in the "Making Change Stick" document found here.
We rule out an amnesty; instead the Bill proposes a clear legal duty on migrants to ensure they have permission to be in the UK.
Anyone who knowingly enters or stays here without permission after it has expired or been cancelled will be committing an imprisonable offence. We propose a new and straightforward single concept of permission to be here.
Long-stay rules:

There is no provision discussed anywhere within the documents or the draft bill for the 10 or 14 year rules. It seems as if everything is being directed towards "permissions" based upon work, family reunification, and asylum. The logic is that one must get into one of those streams or leave the UK. There is no official statement anywhere that explicitly states that the 10/14 year rules are to be abolished, but the silence on the issue is deafening. If anyone has been hoping to attain permanent residency/citizenship through these long-categories in the mid- to long-term, I would advise them to make other plans.

When all these rules come into effect:

There has been no concrete statement as to when such and such a provision will begin. It does appear that various steps may be introduced piecemeal. For instance, it has been stated that individuals lodging applications starting from April 2009 will have to contribute towards the "migrant fund". This would include temporary, ILR and citizenship applications. However, I repeat, there is no definitive information as to when all the provisions of the new laws (e.g., the probational stage, the volunteering requirement, etc.) will take effect. Parliament will spend the upcoming 2008/09 session debating the new Act. They may be completed before the 2009 summer recess, they may not. And not only that, but even when the law gets Royal Assent, the actual validity date may be set some time in the future. If you look at the second page of the "partial impact assessment", it would appear that the UKBA is anticipating having everything up and running by 2011. At this moment, no one can be specific, but some time between summer 2009 and 2011, the new Act will take effect in its entirety.

You might find this to be insightful. Taken from the Wikipedia article on it, here is the historical timeline for the British Nationality Act 1981. This is the major predecessor that is being amended by this new Draft Immigration Bill:
In the mid-1970s the British Government decided to update the nationality code, which had been significantly amended since the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force on 1 January 1949. In 1977, a Green Paper was produced outlining options for reform of the nationality code. This was followed in 1980 by a White Paper containing the government's specific plans for change. The British Nationality Act 1981 received Royal Assent on 30 October 1981 and came into force on 1 January 1983.
Transitional measures:

Again this has not been addressed at all in the documents thus far. However, I would expect that individuals who have been granted ILR before that phrase is abolished and replaced by "probational citizenship" will be allowed to retain it. So there won't likely be retroactive effects in that regard. Most likely, however, they will be incentivised/coerced to apply for citizenship through some transitional regime that, again, has not been disclosed. At some point in the future, the naturalisation requirements for ILR holders and probational citizens will likely and naturally merge.

1963British
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:13 pm

Post by 1963British » Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:54 pm

RobinLondon, that is a great post, thank you for the insight.

I started a thread on the volunteering portion as to when and whom.

I think you made a mistake in typing your comment. Did you not mean?

"However, I would expect that individuals who have been granted ILR before that phrase is abolished and replaced by "permanent permission" will be allowed to retain it."

Or do you think ILR which is by all rights permanent residency to be replaced by probational citizenship? That would no doubt be a step back.

RobinLondon
Member of Standing
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: SE London

Post by RobinLondon » Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:30 pm

Thanks, 1963British, for your compliments regarding my post.

I think I'm confused by your other statement.

I wrote:
However, I would expect that individuals who have been granted ILR before that phrase is abolished and replaced by "probational citizenship" will be allowed to retain it.
By this I mean that I think that someone who has applied for and been granted ILR before the term and status "ILR" is removed from the Rules going forward will continue to hold that status under the new regime. They won't have to apply for probational citizenship. I would expect individuals holding ILR and those holding probational citizenship and the new "permanent residence" will coexist. Eventually the numbers of ILR holders will diminish by attrition through either naturalisation, emigration or death. But at some point in the future (5, 10, or 15+ years?), I wouldn't be surprised if ILR holders are incentivised or coerced into becoming British or even into applying formally for the new "permanent residence" status.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand what it is that you think I mistyped, but I hope that what I wrote above makes my thinking a bit clearer.

Added shortly thereafter:

Ah, I think I've got your point. Yes, ILR and "permanent permission" are in many ways equal statuses. What I meant in my earlier post was that the next step following on from a temporary, limited leave will no longer be ILR. Rather, this next step has been replaced by "probational citizenship". It's the step that I was referring to, not a status and its associated entitlements. But regarding the status and its entitlements, then yes: In many ways, ILR and "permanent permission" are one in the same.

So that phrase should read instead:
However, I would expect that individuals who have been granted ILR before that phrase is abolished and that step replaced by "probational citizenship" will be allowed to retain it.

1963British
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:13 pm

Post by 1963British » Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:59 pm

RobinLondon, take a look at the flow chart on the consultation document that was released in February. I would suggest the chart on page 20 as a start.

They specifically use the term Indefinite Leave to Remain as one of the two possible journey ends, "Permanent Residence."

ILR is never associated with the "probational citizenship" phase, which is the middle part of the journey.

Once you have reached ILR or British Citizenship, you are the end of a path.

iceman010899
Member
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: London

Post by iceman010899 » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:10 pm

hi,

So if someone currently has ILR, will this be converted to probationary citizenship ? OR will it not effect current ILR holders ?

RobinLondon
Member of Standing
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: SE London

Post by RobinLondon » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:08 am

1963British, I believe we've been agreeing with each other all along.

Old system: Limited leave --> ILR --> British citizenship

New system: Temporary permission --> Probational citizenship --> permanent residence/UK citizenship

I never meant to imply or suggest that ILR = probational citizenship. ILR = permanent residence.

What I meant was that if you look at both systems as having three steps, ILR was the "second step" in the old system. Probational citizenship is the "second step" in the new.

The fly in the ointment is that permanent residence can now be the absolute and final step in the new system. It could have been in the old system as well, of course. But for most people, it was just the intermediate step to British citizenship.

I'm not the Home Secretary, iceman10899, but ILR probably won't be converted to probational citizenship. And why should it? It is already a form of permanent residence. But that isn't to say at some distant point along the road, the Government won't require ILR holders to formally apply to change their status to the new "permanent permission" label. This wouldn't be a change in status, but just a change in a semantic label so that they jive with the new system. It would be a nice little earner for the Home Office on a rainy day, so I wouldn't put it past them. Or ILR-holders might get so sick and tired of dealing with immigration that they simply throw in the towel and become UK citizens.

1963British
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:13 pm

Post by 1963British » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:39 pm

I'm not the Home Secretary, iceman10899,
You would make a much better Home Secretary than what we have!!

And thanks for the clarification, now I see exactly what you meant too!!

My families "path" began with me becoming British under s 4(c), followed by the children under s 3(1) and we now want to just finish it all off with my spouse under s 6(2) or whatever they decide to call it. To complete the "journey" we just need to build up the days, which happens in 2010. The good thing is that she started straight off with Indefinite Leave to Enter/Remain so a lot of nonsense was avoided.

1963British
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:13 pm

Post by 1963British » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:45 pm

Or ILR-holders might get so sick and tired of dealing with immigration that they simply throw in the towel and become UK citizens.
So true. Using my spouse as an example whose vignette states "Indefinite Leave to Enter the United Kingdom" with an expiration date that coincides with her US Passport expiration date.

There are many many people in and out of Government who do not know what that means.

I admit that ILE is not very common but over time, that definition will fade into generational memory and you are right people will throw up their hands and just get a UK Passport w/Citizenship.

But as I wrote earlier that is not my families "path."

This "path" and "journey" nonsense is utter rubbish!!

whirly
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:43 pm
Location: london

Post by whirly » Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:38 pm

Transitional measures:

Again this has not been addressed at all in the documents thus far. However, I would expect that individuals who have been granted ILR before that phrase is abolished and replaced by "probational citizenship" will be allowed to retain it. So there won't likely be retroactive effects in that regard. Most likely, however, they will be incentivised/coerced to apply for citizenship through some transitional regime that, again, has not been disclosed. At some point in the future, the naturalisation requirements for ILR holders and probational citizens will likely and naturally merge.
I agree that permanent residency (whatever they call it) will remain an option at the end of one's 'journey' or 'path'. I truly hope they let people who are currently on ILR retain their permanent status with benefits. They cannot force people into becoming British citizens, although RobinLondon might be right that they will try to incentivise naturalisation. If everyone had to become British, my boss, most of my work colleagues, and several friends would have to go home after years - decades, in some cases - of living here, rather than give up their home country nationalities. I can't see that happening.

1963British
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:13 pm

Post by 1963British » Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:27 pm

although RobinLondon might be right that they will try to incentivise naturalisation.
I had some thoughts on what the draft legislation would look like because I too was led to believe that they would provide incentives to get people out of ILR.

It looks like any incentives will have to be in how the Secretary interprets the legislation and writes the policy.

The biggest incentive would be to "exempt" anyone that holds ILE/ILR from the volunteer requirement until some date in the future that would let all those people easily complete the "journey" that the picked.

I am still holding out hope for reason that will be the case but alas just as RobinLondon is not the Home Secretary, I am not a MP!

paulp
Diamond Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:34 pm

Post by paulp » Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:12 pm

whirly wrote:I agree that permanent residency (whatever they call it) will remain an option at the end of one's 'journey' or 'path'. I truly hope they let people who are currently on ILR retain their permanent status with benefits. They cannot force people into becoming British citizens, although RobinLondon might be right that they will try to incentivise naturalisation. If everyone had to become British, my boss, most of my work colleagues, and several friends would have to go home after years - decades, in some cases - of living here, rather than give up their home country nationalities. I can't see that happening.

What about the comments by the HO Minister a while back that staying on ILR will no longer be tolerated and if people do not want to take up citizenship, then they will have to leave?

whirly
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:43 pm
Location: london

Post by whirly » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:09 pm

What about the comments by the HO Minister a while back that staying on ILR will no longer be tolerated and if people do not want to take up citizenship, then they will have to leave?
I just don't see the logic in it (I know, no one ever accused the HO of basing their policies on logic, but go with me here!)

Either:

a) There will be a mass exodus of people who get fed up and leave. Whoosh! Was that a tumbleweed? Where did everybody go?

or

b) Everyone will apply for citizenship, putting even more strain on the HO, related government services, congested roads, overcrowded houses, schools... I thought the current population projections were scary enough without actively encouraging more people to squeeze onto this little island!

Don't get me wrong - I'm happy that the UK is not shutting its borders like they could, but I really don't see what they would hope to accomplish by getting rid of people on ILR altogether... I can kind of see them stripping ILR of benefits. I'd hate to see that, but it makes the most sense in trying to mollify people who object to immigration on the basis that 'all those immigrants are coming here to mooch off our benefits'. Come here, stay as long as you want, but unless you become British, no council housing for you... ??? !!! ???

But then, I'm definitely not the HO Minister! (We have quite the shadow government growing on this thread, don't we? :) )

paulp
Diamond Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:34 pm

Post by paulp » Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:00 am

whirly wrote:I just don't see the logic in it (I know, no one ever accused the HO of basing their policies on logic, but go with me here!)

Either:

a) There will be a mass exodus of people who get fed up and leave. Whoosh! Was that a tumbleweed? Where did everybody go?
It was associated with Gordon Brown's "proud to be British" push. I recall that it was phrased like, if people don't want to become British, then they will have to leave.
whirly wrote: or

b) Everyone will apply for citizenship, putting even more strain on the HO, related government services, congested roads, overcrowded houses, schools... I thought the current population projections were scary enough without actively encouraging more people to squeeze onto this little island!
ILR has currently gives the same rights to stay and to benefits as citizenship, except the right to vote for non-commonwealths. I can see how it will make the HO busier and bring in more fees but no increase of congested roads, overcrowded houses, increase in population, etc.
whirly wrote: Don't get me wrong - I'm happy that the UK is not shutting its borders like they could, but I really don't see what they would hope to accomplish by getting rid of people on ILR altogether... I can kind of see them stripping ILR of benefits. I'd hate to see that, but it makes the most sense in trying to mollify people who object to immigration on the basis that 'all those immigrants are coming here to mooch off our benefits'. Come here, stay as long as you want, but unless you become British, no council housing for you... ??? !!! ???
They may go down the removing benefits route. Or newcomers that do not "earn the right to become a citizen" in an alloted time, say 3 years, may have to leave.

But then, I'm definitely not the HO Minister! (We have quite the shadow government growing on this thread, don't we? :) )[/quote]

skillipedia
Newly Registered
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:37 pm

Post by skillipedia » Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:08 am

There is not any substance in Home Office announcements. It seems to be written by a lawyer

William Blake
Member of Standing
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:55 pm

Post by William Blake » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:08 am

Here:

http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco ... rntheright

it is stated:


Managing any local impacts
10. full access to benefits for citizens and permanent residents, with migrants contributing a little extra to the cost of local services.


Can they do that legally? Charge someone extra tax because they are foreigners?
Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born.
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night

thsths
Senior Member
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:14 pm
United Kingdom

Re: Amnesty / 10&14 yrs / When the draft immi bill takes

Post by thsths » Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:07 am

RobinLondon wrote:Just some small notes from having read the material.
Thanks for this post. It confirms some of the suspicions that have been around since the consultation document on citizenship. Do you have any further citable sources? I did a search, and the results are rather slim.

I found this page: http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/features ... s_id=32495 , which I would place somewhere between hilarious and sad. Do you really have to bribe people to be patriotic now? Sorry, but this sounds too much like the "Department of Homeland Security".
There is no provision discussed anywhere within the documents or the draft bill for the 10 or 14 year rules. It seems as if everything is being directed towards "permissions" based upon work, family reunification, and asylum.
Indeed, and each of these categories will have its own path to citizenship? I wonder how that works out for students, my guess being that it could be a lot harder for them.
Again this has not been addressed at all in the documents thus far. However, I would expect that individuals who have been granted ILR before that phrase is abolished and replaced by "probational citizenship" will be allowed to retain it.
I agree, but is that not obvious? After all, you can hardly call it ILR, if it can be scrapped by new legislation within the year. Of course the path to citizenship from ILR is up in the air, and your speculation sounds quite plausible.

I guess the more interesting question is what happens to immigrants being here "in good faith" on the current path to citizenship. From past experience it seems likely that they will be in a difficult situation, being subjected to new and mostly unfavourable legislation. I have little doubt that the government is trying to force the new rules as soon as possible, but there is always the question of whether it will stand in court.

And are there any plans to correct the completely contradictory phrase "probational citizenship"? After all it is not citizenship, so the name is only going to create a lot of confusion.
William Blake wrote:10. full access to benefits for citizens and permanent residents, with migrants contributing a little extra to the cost of local services.

Can they do that legally? Charge someone extra tax because they are foreigners?
Maybe it is not called a tax, but a contribution? Or it is added to the application fees? I am sure the government can make the law, but it has to be seen whether it will stand in all cases.

My impression is that the difference between the "lowest common denominator" of a reasonable standard set by European legislation and UK law will get even wider. While European citizens and their family members enjoy equal treatment in most situations, family members of UK citizens will have to jump through more and more hoops to be accepted in. I am sure that this will open a whole bag of human rights questions concerning the right to family live, especially for those that cannot afford the ever increasing fees. I for one find it very strange that there is no mention of this whatsoever. If the legislation is not balanced careful, it may fail to stand in the ECHR.

Tom
Last edited by thsths on Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Siggi
Senior Member
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:26 pm
Location: London

Post by Siggi » Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:12 am

Willliam Blake wrote:

Can they do that legally? Charge someone extra tax because they are foreigners?

Yes they can and why not?

William Blake
Member of Standing
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:55 pm

Post by William Blake » Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:37 pm

Well I think UK citizens who are well off should pay for me. How does that grab you?

To me that is just blatant discrimination. And what do we get in return for the extra 'contribution'? The same as anyone else. So if we are equal as human beings why charge me extra? Immigrants in many cases are already finding it difficult and to make them pay more is inflammatory and certainly anti - foreigner. Why don't UK citizens pay extra for immigration? That question will begin to reveal the issus involved. At any rate I find its contemplation surprising as it just seems blatantly discriminatory.

If you didn't get the same opportunity to housing or jobs as UK citizens wouldn't that be called dearly beloved? If you say an immigrant must pay extra then what about the cobntribution they already make to society by being an active member of society? The same contribution as any other Brit makes. So why pay extra as a penalty for being a foreigner. Especially if it can't be shown that I am directly paying extra for the extra I am meant to be consuming. And you won't get access to public funds so in effect you are being used and exploited as a foreigner to give more to UK citizens.

I think then at the heart of the matter is an immigrants right to be here in British society and such a tax clearly states you don't have the same rifght to be here in fact you are aburden hence a penalty to be imposed on you and yet such an immigrant is lawfully here. While one may be here legally the governrment is still saying on the other hand you do not have the same right to be here - you are less equal. If they can do that as a government then why can't any other organization do the same? Charge people extra becasue they are foreigners. The drivers licence people could do the same the local council the same etc. You could get paid less salary becasue you are a foreigner. Furthemore you should wait until the UK citizens get the best pick of the jobs and then you get a job. I think its outrageous, immoral, dearly beloved and unlawful and I hope it is fought in the courts.

I guess as foreigners in this country we just don't have that much power. I wish we would be more ascertive about our own humanity. I really wish there was a robust body representing us that would simply challenge these sort of things in the courts whenever they arise. You can't charge a man extra money for services because he is a foreigner! That's nonsense. Am I the only one seeing this?
Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born.
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night

Siggi
Senior Member
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:26 pm
Location: London

Post by Siggi » Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:09 pm

William Blake, it appears that you and will never agree on the subject of amnesty's or on people who beleive they have a right to come to a country and demand equal right's and opportunities as the natives of the country they have decided to inpose themselves on.

As for better heeled UK citizens having to pay for this type of Global Bum invading their country,well!

Natives of the UK also have rights and it's not just to fork out to the worlds masses, who continue to cry discrimination ect !

If you don't like Britian and what it stands for then leave.

thsths
Senior Member
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:14 pm
United Kingdom

Post by thsths » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:27 pm

William Blake wrote:If they can do that as a government then why can't any other organization do the same?
It is already happening. Banks and insurances charge more if have not been a UK resident for the past 4 years. And I think something should be done about this, because it is discrimination, and contrary to EU law.

However, the government is different. In the end, immigration law is always a discrimination about foreigners, and it is the task of the government to put down the rules. Of course European citizens are protected by European law, but for non-EEA citizens it is likely to get more difficult.

Tom

William Blake
Member of Standing
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:55 pm

Post by William Blake » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:53 pm

Siggi wrote:William Blake ...
If you don't like Britian and what it stands for then leave.
Mayor's aide quits in beloved row after saying Caribbean immigrants should go home if they didn't like life under Boris



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Boris.html

A senior aide to Boris Johnson was forced to stand down last night after he became embroiled in a race row.

James McGrath was reported to have said 'let people go if they don't like it here' in response to a suggestion that Caribbean migrants might return to their homelands after Mr Johnson had become London mayor.

The remarks by the mayor's deputy chief of staff were disclosed yesterday by black rights campaigner and Labour activist Marc Wadsworth.

They were made in a meeting between the two last month.

Mr Wadsworth had pointed to a claim by commentator Darcus Howe that the election of 'Boris Johnson, a right-wing Conservative, might just trigger off a mass exodus of older Caribbean migrants back to our homelands'.

Mr Wadsworth claimed on his internet blog: 'He retorted: "Well, let them go if they don't like it here



If you are so unhappy with the way immigration is going or any other thing that make you unhappy why don't you leave? Would you leave for example because you are unhappy with labour's policies or something else or would you try to fix it? People act like they don't want foreigners here and yet the upkeep of the very fabric of this society depends on foreigners and foreign labour. Let all the foreigners leave. See if you will find bread and milk in the supermarets tomorrow. You make me laugh.

Foreigners built this country. If you are so unhappy with foreigners here and you think we are so inferior we have no right to protest, we are all beggars who have to take what we get then why don't you leave? Answer that and you will see exactly my point that for you a foreigner is never equal to you. There is no equality just an attempt to find ways to exploit foreigners. Its obvious even when people try to assimilate and want to be treated like the next man they are not allowed because a foreigner is always a foreigner in Britain and then UK government talks about integration. Of course things are different when Brits go abroad.

An accident of nature might place you in Britain but many others have fought for our places in this society and we deserve our place and because you criticise something is not to say you don't deserve your place in this society. So your prejudiced view is clearly made manifest. We have been here for a while and we will always be here.

We sick an tired of-a your ism-skism game -
You can fool some people sometimes,
But you cant fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (what you gonna do? ),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah!)

Bob Marley
Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born.
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night

Siggi
Senior Member
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:26 pm
Location: London

Post by Siggi » Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Well done William Blake, without your intelligent well thought out answers,life would be boring for poor souls like me.

I do wonder why you have such a Big Chip on shoulder???

Thandia
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 1:18 pm

Post by Thandia » Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:43 pm

William Blake wrote:
Siggi wrote:William Blake ...
If you don't like Britian and what it stands for then leave.
Mayor's aide quits in beloved row after saying Caribbean immigrants should go home if they didn't like life under Boris



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Boris.html

A senior aide to Boris Johnson was forced to stand down last night after he became embroiled in a race row.

James McGrath was reported to have said 'let people go if they don't like it here' in response to a suggestion that Caribbean migrants might return to their homelands after Mr Johnson had become London mayor.

The remarks by the mayor's deputy chief of staff were disclosed yesterday by black rights campaigner and Labour activist Marc Wadsworth.

They were made in a meeting between the two last month.

Mr Wadsworth had pointed to a claim by commentator Darcus Howe that the election of 'Boris Johnson, a right-wing Conservative, might just trigger off a mass exodus of older Caribbean migrants back to our homelands'.

Mr Wadsworth claimed on his internet blog: 'He retorted: "Well, let them go if they don't like it here



If you are so unhappy with the way immigration is going or any other thing that make you unhappy why don't you leave? Would you leave for example because you are unhappy with labour's policies or something else or would you try to fix it? People act like they don't want foreigners here and yet the upkeep of the very fabric of this society depends on foreigners and foreign labour. Let all the foreigners leave. See if you will find bread and milk in the supermarets tomorrow. You make me laugh.

Foreigners built this country. If you are so unhappy with foreigners here and you think we are so inferior we have no right to protest, we are all beggars who have to take what we get then why don't you leave? Answer that and you will see exactly my point that for you a foreigner is never equal to you. There is no equality just an attempt to find ways to exploit foreigners. Its obvious even when people try to assimilate and want to be treated like the next man they are not allowed because a foreigner is always a foreigner in Britain and then UK government talks about integration. Of course things are different when Brits go abroad.

An accident of nature might place you in Britain but many others have fought for our places in this society and we deserve our place and because you criticise something is not to say you don't deserve your place in this society. So your prejudiced view is clearly made manifest. We have been here for a while and we will always be here.

We sick an tired of-a your ism-skism game -
You can fool some people sometimes,
But you cant fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (what you gonna do? ),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah!)

Bob Marley

Very well said William Blake. I bet you if this had been said by an aussie, kiwi, canadian or an american to brit migrants in those respective countries, there would be a major uproar. It's ok for some Brits to attempt to treat foreign migrants like second class citizens but if migrant brits were treated any less in the countries they've migrated too, they'd scream blue murder, never mind that they also never integrate or learn any local languages if they're in a non english speaking country like spain for instance, but they have thei own "expat" communities with no one treating them any less than the "natives" of that particular country.

Edelweiss
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:03 am
Location: UK

Post by Edelweiss » Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:01 pm

William Blake wrote:Managing any local impacts
10. full access to benefits for citizens and permanent residents, with migrants contributing a little extra to the cost of local services.
The biggest problem with this is that we already pay more tax because we can't claim any tax benefits (like child benefit).

I would also like to know if this applies to European Union migrants also, or just to non- EEU. They are putting a lot of pressure on local communities.

I won't be able to apply for ILR before 2010 due to the rule changes that came into effect after I entered the country. I am very worried that I am going to end up with yet another rule change costing me more and giving me nothing in return just because I am unlucky with timing.

ben_scaro
Newbie
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Amnesty / 10&14 yrs / When the draft immi bill takes

Post by ben_scaro » Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:50 pm

RobinLondon wrote:
Long-stay rules:

There is no provision discussed anywhere within the documents or the draft bill for the 10 or 14 year rules. It seems as if everything is being directed towards "permissions" based upon work, family reunification, and asylum. The logic is that one must get into one of those streams or leave the UK. There is no official statement anywhere that explicitly states that the 10/14 year rules are to be abolished, but the silence on the issue is deafening. If anyone has been hoping to attain permanent residency/citizenship through these long-categories in the mid- to long-term, I would advise them to make other plans.
Interesting. Sorry I've dug up the thread a bit late, as I'm a new member.

I wonder what they will do with people who were hoping to get ILR under the long stay rules but have no other citizenship ? Most of them are currently in the 'limbo' situation.

They can't deport these people to anywhere, nor can they really stop them from working. In most cases their nations of origin will not offer them any form of settlement visa, so they can't return.

Much of the tenor of Lord Goldsmith's report was about cleaning up residual types of nationality that don't offer right of abode.

Obviously it's difficult to extrapolate from broad policy statements to how actual legislation might work in practice . . .

But I'd be interested in what people think would be likely outcomes.

Ben

Locked