Do we need new laws to curb immigration?
Discussion
I am in the process of applying for a settlement visa for my wife to reside in the UK. We have to prove, 1 we have a place to live, (ok she owns a house in the UK with no mortgage), 2 prove we are married, we were married in the UK and have a UK weeding certificate but they Border Agency also want a photograph of the wedding, (I am trying not to laugh at that one), 3 she has to pass an English test, 4 I have to prove an income of over 22000 pound a year, no problem but they want 6 months pay slips, + one year tax return, + a copy of my contract of employment, + 6 months bank statement for the account my salary is banked in (I.e. 4 proofs of the same thing), 5 proof I have over 16000 pound in cash saving and have had this for at least 6 months. 7 she had had to have a health check at a designated clinic (100 pounds)
And so far it has cost 120 pounds for the English exam and 1050 pounds for the application so it is not cheap.
This is to enter as the spouse of a British subject and we have been married for 7 years, so not ‘arranged’.
So I am forced to the conclusion that the poor, illiterate, immigrants that appear to be the main cause of concern in the UK have not followed this system (the near 1300 pound fee alone would prevent lots of ‘poor’ people), but have entered illegally.
Looking at the already draconian requirements above, and accepting that most of the problem are illegal immigrants, why do we need new laws, surly simply enforcing the laws we have would be a better use of resources
And so far it has cost 120 pounds for the English exam and 1050 pounds for the application so it is not cheap.
This is to enter as the spouse of a British subject and we have been married for 7 years, so not ‘arranged’.
So I am forced to the conclusion that the poor, illiterate, immigrants that appear to be the main cause of concern in the UK have not followed this system (the near 1300 pound fee alone would prevent lots of ‘poor’ people), but have entered illegally.
Looking at the already draconian requirements above, and accepting that most of the problem are illegal immigrants, why do we need new laws, surly simply enforcing the laws we have would be a better use of resources
As a White working male here in the Uk I fully believe I would be better off financially if I snuck OUT of England and then very badly smuggled myself back in, I say badly because for my plan to work I would need to be found just after entry.
I would feign language difficulties, have no ID, and would only keep saying "asylum" and "if go back get kill".
I would also learn the phrase "human rights" and repeat regularly.
If I am a good enough actor I could be on easy street for the rest of my life, I could even re-import my wife and children and get a house paid for in a nice area of a city I cannot presently afford to live in. I could run a Cash-rich business and never pay tax, and never worry about having penalty points or insurance because hey, no license and the Nissan is not registered to me anyway.
As with anything in this country the rules are there to catch out the ones who play by the rules and do things properly.
I would feign language difficulties, have no ID, and would only keep saying "asylum" and "if go back get kill".
I would also learn the phrase "human rights" and repeat regularly.
If I am a good enough actor I could be on easy street for the rest of my life, I could even re-import my wife and children and get a house paid for in a nice area of a city I cannot presently afford to live in. I could run a Cash-rich business and never pay tax, and never worry about having penalty points or insurance because hey, no license and the Nissan is not registered to me anyway.
As with anything in this country the rules are there to catch out the ones who play by the rules and do things properly.
Edited by Getragdogleg on Friday 8th March 07:58
Digga said:
Whatever laws you do, or do not have, if the government of the day tells the border ageniceis and police forces to turn a blind eye (as Tony BLiar unquestionably did) then the net result is unrestricted immigration.
Or if they seriously undefund the BA, they will end up with the same thing. And they did.Yes, we do need such laws. About 12 years ago at least would have been a good start.
£1300 to come and be able to settle in the UK is a lot ? Sorry, no, that's a bargain. There are also people with nothing at all paying more than that just to be stuffed in the back of a truck to try and get here.
Most of the other stuff is very sensible too, given how the system has been abused. I'm sorry it seems a pain in the arse, as you at least both sound genuine, but like the benefits system, too many have spoilt it and it needs clamping down on, hence the genuine suffer to try and correct for the sheer number of those who abused it.
£1300 to come and be able to settle in the UK is a lot ? Sorry, no, that's a bargain. There are also people with nothing at all paying more than that just to be stuffed in the back of a truck to try and get here.
Most of the other stuff is very sensible too, given how the system has been abused. I'm sorry it seems a pain in the arse, as you at least both sound genuine, but like the benefits system, too many have spoilt it and it needs clamping down on, hence the genuine suffer to try and correct for the sheer number of those who abused it.
Berw said:
That's my point, it would appear some one turns a blond eye, say on language we have been today to arrange for my wife to sit an English exam, so how are there people 'incountry' who can't speak English, unless a blond yes was/is turned
Could you take the exam too? Or would you turn a 'blond' eye to it?
oyster said:
Berw said:
That's my point, it would appear some one turns a blond eye, say on language we have been today to arrange for my wife to sit an English exam, so how are there people 'incountry' who can't speak English, unless a blond yes was/is turned
Could you take the exam too? Or would you turn a 'blond' eye to it?singlecoil said:
Digga said:
Whatever laws you do, or do not have, if the government of the day tells the border ageniceis and police forces to turn a blind eye (as Tony BLiar unquestionably did) then the net result is unrestricted immigration.
Or if they seriously undefund the BA, they will end up with the same thing. And they did.And I know for a fact - it's no secret now - that in the late nineties, police stations were issue with instructions to completely ignore the issue of 'illegals' and do no more than give them directions to the nearest passport/immigration office, with a suggestion they visit it.
This was a massive, un-voted for experiment in social engineering (remember all the 'diveristy' newspeak?) at the taxpayer's expense. It took ages and the voices of not a few disgruntled genuine immigrants to even get to the point where this ideal could be questioned without the racism card being used as a cudgel against any opposition. Now the policy is entirely discredited (even now by Labour) we are still not yet at the point of having decided upon and implemented a viable, long-term plan.
Digga said:
we are still not yet at the point of having decided upon and implemented a viable, long-term plan.
No point. If you've been to London recently you will realise there is at least one foreigner (using that word very loosely and with no intention to offend) for every white first language English-speaker.There's no going back from here.
AJI said:
Doesn't seem to matter what laws we have in the UK as long as we are signed up to the European Court of Human Rights.
It seems the ECHR is now our law with regards to these things and our government(s)'s readiness to accept their decisions.
I don't know why this keeps coming up. It's no different from living in Newcastle and having a government and courts in London. We are Europeans. They are not foreigners.It seems the ECHR is now our law with regards to these things and our government(s)'s readiness to accept their decisions.
AJI said:
Doesn't seem to matter what laws we have in the UK as long as we are signed up to the European Court of Human Rights.
It seems the ECHR is now our law with regards to these things and our government(s)'s readiness to accept their decisions.
What do you think it will happen if brake any if the ECHR laws, death penalty? It seems the ECHR is now our law with regards to these things and our government(s)'s readiness to accept their decisions.
The only reason we abide by these laws is so the PM can raise his nose when speaking to Russia, Iran Zimbabwe etc
Ozzie Osmond said:
No point. If you've been to London recently you will realise there is at least one foreigner (using that word very loosely and with no intention to offend) for every white first language English-speaker.
There's no going back from here.
Do the black/asian etc first language English-speaker not count? I ask because a lot of them will have been in this country a lot longer than my family and yet you seem to approve of me more.There's no going back from here.
Ozzie Osmond said:
I don't know why this keeps coming up. It's no different from living in Newcastle and having a government and courts in London. We are Europeans. They are not foreigners.
Its not Britain though is it? Newcastle and London are both in Britain, the ECHR is not.We don't directly vote for the people in power in Europe. I can't remember seeing on any polling card the option whereby I could choose to have my human rights ruled by powers outside the border of the UK.
Its not democratic.
Why aren't the courts in the UK sufficient to decide our own human rights? Why do we feel it necessary to accept some 'higher power'?
I thought the whole point of being a decmocratic nation was that we decided our own destiny/fate (whatever terminology suitable to use here).
AJI said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
I don't know why this keeps coming up. It's no different from living in Newcastle and having a government and courts in London. We are Europeans. They are not foreigners.
Its not Britain though is it? Newcastle and London are both in Britain, the ECHR is not.We don't directly vote for the people in power in Europe. I can't remember seeing on any polling card the option whereby I could choose to have my human rights ruled by powers outside the border of the UK.
Its not democratic.
Why aren't the courts in the UK sufficient to decide our own human rights? Why do we feel it necessary to accept some 'higher power'?
I thought the whole point of being a decmocratic nation was that we decided our own destiny/fate (whatever terminology suitable to use here).
Ozzie Osmond said:
Digga said:
we are still not yet at the point of having decided upon and implemented a viable, long-term plan.
No point. If you've been to London recently you will realise there is at least one foreigner (using that word very loosely and with no intention to offend) for every white first language English-speaker.There's no going back from here.
However, whilst there are still a good few terrorists, pirates, criminals and political despots that have not (yet) settled here, there's still time to prevent that.
JensenA said:
AJI said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
I don't know why this keeps coming up. It's no different from living in Newcastle and having a government and courts in London. We are Europeans. They are not foreigners.
Its not Britain though is it? Newcastle and London are both in Britain, the ECHR is not.We don't directly vote for the people in power in Europe. I can't remember seeing on any polling card the option whereby I could choose to have my human rights ruled by powers outside the border of the UK.
Its not democratic.
Why aren't the courts in the UK sufficient to decide our own human rights? Why do we feel it necessary to accept some 'higher power'?
I thought the whole point of being a decmocratic nation was that we decided our own destiny/fate (whatever terminology suitable to use here).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff