# The children of Windrush



## Tropi (Apr 16, 2018)

The children of Windrush: 'I’m here legally, but they’re asking me to prove I’m British'
This is so appalling!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2018)

this is so sadly typical of the nasty party


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 16, 2018)

It's fucking out of order.


----------



## Poi E (Apr 16, 2018)

Seeing a lot of immigration enforcement vans around Croydon. More of this to come.


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2018)

Yeah, disgusting. WTF is going on here. Home Office are saying, it's OK. We can help them find the right documents. Why do these peple even need to prove anything at this stage. What's changed. Who's decided to persue / enforce this.


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2018)

Oh and some peple have been "deported in error."

FFS
Theresa May signals U-turn on treatment of Windrush children but refuses to apologise


----------



## weepiper (Apr 16, 2018)

'deported in error'.


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2018)

Racist policy in racist outcomes shocker.


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2018)

Concerned there's a narrative of good immigrant (Windrush invitees) and bad immigrant (everyone else) being allowed to develop around this. The Windrush _accidental deportees_ are just the most glaring outrage of an outrageously racist policy - they are the tip of the iceberg. We need to make sure the argument is widened out at all opportunity.


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> Racist policy in racist outcomes shocker.



"Hostile environment" © Teresa May


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 16, 2018)

I posted a thread about my friend a while back, who finds himself in this absurd situation.

His black mother and white father met in apartheid South Africa and went to Zambia to be together and raise a family. The father died, the mother met a man from the UK, and they moved to the UK in 1969. My friend was two yeas old and travelled on his mother's passport. His mum then died and his stepfather refused to adopt him. His birth certificate and his mother's passport seem to have been lost (my friend says he feels that his now-dead stepfather deliberately destroyed them but that's by the by at this point). My friend has been through the school system, has received ongoing treatment from the NHS, has served time in prison, been in receipt of benefits, has a council flat, and has paid taxes at least some of the time. But he's told that he doesn't officially exist and is at risk of being deported back to Zambia. There's probably no record of him there either, he's never been there, doesn't know anyone there, he hasn't even ever been able to go out of the UK because he can't get a passport. It took him years to finally get a driving licence. He stopped paying taxes and dropped into the black economy when it looked like he was at risk of deportation. He's spent a fortune on solicitors, trying to get this sorted out but whenever he pops up above the parapet, the government meanies spot him and threaten him with deportation. He keeps finding himself up against brick walls, and bounces from being resigned to this stupidity and just trying to keep his head down, and determination to get it sorted out once and for all.

Hopefully this issue finally getting some publicity will help him and others like him to get some kind of resolution.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> Concerned there's a narrative of good immigrant (Windrush invitees) and bad immigrant (everyone else) being allowed to develop around this. The Windrush _accidental deportees_ are just the most glaring outrage of an outrageously racist policy - they are the tip of the iceberg. We need to make sure the argument is widened out at all opportunity.




I suspect my friend will fall foul of this aspect of the story.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 16, 2018)

It's not that widely known I think but this government has a policy of deporting people *before* their appeals can be heard. They claim appeals can be lodged from wherever you get deported to but in reality this happens very rarely - barely at all in fact. You can imagine the difficulties with doing it if you don't have plenty of resources. It's an atrocious policy, and an example of what happens when the Daily Mail narratives are winning. 

This is one of the things the Stansted 15 were protesting btw - currently up on 'terrorism'  charges for preventing a deportation flight taking off.


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2018)

this leaflet (and accompanying DVD) created by the Home Office for those *cough* accidental deportees exposes the lie of the accidental bit. (found here)


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 16, 2018)

It's really REALLY shameful stuff from this government.

The anxiety alone from being told after 50 odd years of living here that you're here illegally and are due to be deported to Kingston, Jamaica or somewhere where you've got possibly no family whatsoever is shocking. Let alone the fact that this is preventing people in need getting treatment on the NHS or renting somewhere or working.

Utter cunts of a govenment with their short-sightedness in their crackdown on immigration. And I speak as someone who's endured 8 years of immigration nonsense and over 10 grand of expenses just to live with my foreign wife here.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2018)

Government now in retreat mode:
Some Windrush immigrants wrongly deported, UK admits
The retreat itself is a sign of how unprincipled they are. The Windrush generation are a coherent group with a place in Britain's 'national story'. It was always going to be a mistake to take them on. However the Home Office will behave just as despicably when it comes to individual migrants and asylum seekers.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Apr 16, 2018)

Fucking disgraceful and sadly inevitable.

I think the most astonishing thing is the initial refusal of the government to meet with Commonwealth Heads of Government, in town for the big meeting, to discuss this issue. Our new post-Brexit 'partners'. May could hardly have been more contemptuous. Racist arseholes.


----------



## girasol (Apr 16, 2018)

Government may be in retreat but will the people who lost their jobs/homes get it back????  They better had.  This is disgusting.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 16, 2018)

Timely...






17 June at 13:00–17:00 UTC+01
Birkbeck, University of London
WC1E 7HX London, United Kingdom

Show map
Tickets by Eventbrite



> This June 22nd marks the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the HMS Empire Windrush to the Port of Tilbury.
> 
> The ship brought 492 passengers from Jamaica to the UK, many of whom were ex-servicemen who had fought for Britain in the Second World War, and all were in fact British subjects, rather than ‘migrants’, and as such came with full citizenship rights. It is often forgotten that those who lived under British colonialism only became subject to immigration controls in the UK after 1962.
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 16, 2018)

* My likes have been in appreciation of the contributions, rather than liking the situation.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> Concerned there's a narrative of good immigrant (Windrush invitees) and bad immigrant (everyone else) being allowed to develop around this. The Windrush _accidental deportees_ are just the most glaring outrage of an outrageously racist policy - they are the tip of the iceberg. We need to make sure the argument is widened out at all opportunity.


Kenan Malik recently:

"In demonising a figure such as Hopkins, we often give a free pass to politicians and institutions that are far more influential in promoting reactionary ideas, both in policy and in shaping public opinion.

Consider one of her most infamous columns for the _Sun_, in which she described immigrants as ‘cockroaches’ and called for gunboats to ‘drive them back to their shores’. It was an obnoxious, hate-filled piece that drew a torrent of outrage.

Yet I am always struck by how silent liberals are when it comes to the actual use by European nations of gunboats against refugees and the attempt to wall off Europe by paying millions to the most unsavoury regimes from Turkey to Eritrea to Libya to lock up would-be immigrants in hell-hole detention centres just out of sight of Brussels, Paris and London.

*If half the energy expended on denouncing Hopkins had been used to challenge European migration policy, migrants might be in a better place now.* But, then, to have done so would not have satisfied the demand for cheap outrage." (My emphasis).

ON THE ASSASSINATION OF KATIE HOPKINS


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2018)

Much is being made of the campaigning journalism of Guardian Writer Amelia Gentleman in getting this stuff into the public sphere. Gentleman is married to Tory minister (and brother of Boris) Jo Johnson - I find it quite hard to reconcile these two things. How is it possible to remain married to a key member of such a cruel government, while at the same time exposing it's cruelty? Is it just a game for these people?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> Is it just a game for these people?


Yes.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 16, 2018)

cretinous unthinking behaviour my mum was threatened with deportation having been born in Kenya 70 plus years ago.
 retorting but it was part of the Empire back then and being white made the idiot apologise and back off.
   technically these people are illegal immigrants but only technically and have been here 30 years plus paying taxes etc et only a complete fuckwit wouldn't sort out their citizenship papers quickly without fuss.


so that's them screwed then
  this isn't the home office coming up with an evil plan its unthinking fuckwits being fuckwits and refusing to back down when called on their fuckwittedness.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 16, 2018)

They ( them tory filth ) are now tripping over themselves in their rush to declare this issue abhorrent.

its as shame the cunts did not pay any as much attention to detail when they gleefully implemented the policies

scum


----------



## eatmorecheese (Apr 16, 2018)

likesfish said:


> this isn't the home office coming up with an evil plan its unthinking fuckwits being fuckwits and refusing to back down when called on their fuckwittedness.



Afraid not. This is the result of deliberate policy to make life as uncomfortable and untenable as possible for people with unclear status. No ifs or buts. This is the consequence of persistent media campaigns framing the policies of both Labour and Tory governments. Wankers trying to act tough.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 16, 2018)

likesfish said:


> technically these people are illegal immigrants .



Nope. Not even if you believe in 'illegal immigrants'.

But let's assume we are talking about people doing something illegal. Existing in the wrong place with malice aforethought. Why are these people, unique among lawbreakers, required to prove their innocence rather than being treated as innocent until proven guilty?


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes.


I was last aware of Johnson after he gave a sweet job in the DoE to his mate, the bigot Toby Young. Their dinner parties must be revolting.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 16, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Kenan Malik recently:
> 
> "In demonising a figure such as Hopkins, we often give a free pass to politicians and institutions that are far more influential in promoting reactionary ideas, both in policy and in shaping public opinion.
> 
> ...



I’ve always contended that the likes of Hopkins, Littlejohn etc. and other well-known paid gobshites exist as kind of lightening rods for the rage of the left/liberal/progressive masses - obvious reactionary unpleasant idiots to draw out the anger of this group on social media etc. while the actual cunts with power get on with doing shitty stuff unmolested, looking good in comparison. Also helps with the Overton window thing. They’re not just there for page clicks.


----------



## Whagwan (Apr 16, 2018)

Don't worry they've issued official advice.  "Try to be Jamaican"


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 16, 2018)

The Windrush passengers were being beguiled to come to the UK, job fairs and help desks set up across the islands by major employers like the NHS and British Rail paying the fares in exchange for a few years commitment to help rebuild and renew the uk after the war. Between 61-63 the Tory health minister, a certain Enoch Powell recruited more nurses from the West Indies than previously. These people arrived to hostility and dismay. But helped rebuild this shattered country. All they asked was for a decent life and support for their families.
And we still see the same hostility directed today as happened all those years ago.
Fucking disgraceful and diabolical.
No excuses.


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2018)

likesfish said:


> cretinous unthinking behaviour my mum was threatened with deportation having been born in Kenya 70 plus years ago.
> retorting but it was part of the Empire back then and being white made the idiot apologise and back off.
> technically these people are illegal immigrants but only technically and have been here 30 years plus paying taxes etc et only a complete fuckwit wouldn't sort out their citizenship papers quickly without fuss.
> 
> ...



They're not illegal immigrants. They were given the right to remain in the UK at the time, when arriving with their parents. But weren't issued any official document to say as much. Those caught up in this, losing their jobs, threatened with deportation, have not ever applied for a British passport in the intervening years. So on paper, can't prove their status. Which hasn't been a problem til Teresa May changed the law a few years ago.


----------



## agricola (Apr 16, 2018)

eatmorecheese said:


> Afraid not. This is the result of deliberate policy to make life as uncomfortable and untenable as possible for people with unclear status. No ifs or buts. This is the consequence of persistent media campaigns framing the policies of both Labour and Tory governments. Wankers trying to act tough.



TBH the worrying thing is that this probably isn't a policy that has the level of thought that would be required for it to be deliberate - it comes from the same root cause as those stories that fill the Daily Mail of 90 year old grandmothers being "sent home"; ie the desperate attempts by the Home Office to find anyone at all that they can kick out, so as to make it look like the Tory electoral promise to lower immigration is being met whilst also not incurring undue expense to do so.  

It doesn't matter if you are black, white, asian, sick, well, have long-established roots and children here, if this is the only home you've ever known or even if you are here entirely legally; if they think they can get rid of you cheaply then they probably will have a good go.   To say they are doing it to people deliberately is to miss the point of how banal this is; they are doing it in order to tick a box that says "we have done it" - that it ruins the lives of those involved doesn't really enter into it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 16, 2018)

likesfish said:


> technically these people are illegal immigrants


 If you can't even get this one important fact straight don't even bother please FFS!


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 16, 2018)

xenon said:


> They're not illegal immigrants. They were given the right to remain in the UK at the time, when arriving with their parents. But weren't issued any official document to say as much. Those caught up in this, losing their jobs, threatened with deportation, have not ever applied for a British passport in the intervening years. So on paper, can't prove their status. Which hasn't been a problem til Teresa May changed the law a few years ago.



Correct. They are not illegal immigrants at all. That is the whole point. Proper records should have been kept when ILR was granted. The fact that they weren't isn't the fault of these people, many of whom were very young when they came to the UK 

I'm guessing we are now going to have to use the best database data we have and try and piece it together. Presumably we have good NI records from at least the 80s?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 16, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Correct. They are not illegal immigrants at all. That is the whole point. Proper records should have been kept when ILR was granted. The fact that they weren't isn't the fault of these people, many of whom were very young when they came to the UK
> 
> I'm guessing we are now going to have to use the best database data we have and try and piece it together. Presumably we have good NI records from at least the 80s?



Many went to school here and would have taken exams before starting work. There are records of all of these things. They will have medical records. Plus their tax and NI records..the fact that hasn't stopped the HO hounding them beggars belief.

CUNTS.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 16, 2018)

It isn't only affecting the Windrush children, it is in some cases impacting their children too. This story from last years as an example:

This Woman Always Thought She Was British. Now, After 30 Years, The Government Says She’s Not


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 16, 2018)

From 2016:



> On the 7th of September, 2016, 38 men and four women were forcibly removed from the UK to Jamaica on a private, chartered flight. They were all Jamaican nationals, but for most, Britain is their home. Many moved to the UK as children. Most have British children of their own. Despite that, they were deported, en masse, in secret and at great expense to the British government.



No Tears Left to Cry: Being Deported Is a Distressing Nightmare


----------



## teqniq (Apr 16, 2018)

Glad to see someone stated a thread on this. Been following this for quite a while and noticing a pattern, namely that the vast majority of people being harassed are people of colour. The home office had been deliberately obstructive, withholding information, delaying delivery of documents that these people are perfectly legally entitled to and generally behaving disgracefully. They are institutionally racist imo. I didn't realise until today that some people had already been deported, hopefully they will all be able to come back asap.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 16, 2018)

I have read that the required proof is 5 pieces of documentary evidence for each year in the UK although the Home Office have said they will "work with" people to help them build their case. I think most people would struggle to put that together.


----------



## agricola (Apr 16, 2018)

8115 said:


> I have read that the required proof is 5 pieces of documentary evidence for each year in the UK although the Home Office have said they will "work with" people to help them build their case. I think most people would struggle to put that together.



Which is the truly perverse thing about this - if you have worked all your life, don't have a criminal record and don't have much of a record claiming benefits then you are far more likely to fall foul of this than someone whose status has already been established by the state; you also won't have much of a document trail with which to prove your status, nor are you likely to be aware of what your rights actually are.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 16, 2018)

surely if there is a record of anything like NI payments or school records before 1971 it should be a simple case
also find it hard to believe there was no record made in 1971


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 16, 2018)

I'm going to say something here not everyone will agree with, and that's this.....none of this was a issue before we had mass EU immigration. 

Race relations steadily improved through the 80s and 90s. Only nasty fringe parties like NF and BNP talked about deportation. Up to the mid 00s most people were sympathetic to asylum seekers. 

Then too many purely economic migrants were allowed to come from Eastern European countries.....  That is what caused this 'hostile environment', the government couldn't control EU migration so they started casting around for someone else to blame, trying to reduce non EU immigration to virtually zero, going to any lengths trying to root out illegal immigrants and never mind how many legal ones got caught up in the process.

I firmly believe if we'd controlled EU migration better we wouldn't be in this mess. But we can't turn the clock back and we certainly shouldn't blame the EU migrants.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 16, 2018)

can someone please explain why Theresa May, Amber Rudd's boss, is so _consumingly obsessed_ with immigration?

she always has been, dating back to her days before office, and I am absolutely at a loss to understand why.

this has led to the indefensible "hostile environment" policies where Home Office officials are given targets to meet and no one is much interested in how they get there. That's before we get onto here immigration vans and the batshit-insane obsession with deporting recently graduated foreigners as soon as their studies finish. It's also the root of this current horrible problem for an ageing generation of folk who regard the UK as their home and have every right to. I very rarely agree with David Lammy but he made an excellent speech on this today.

just...why? where does this obsession with immigration come from and where will it end?


----------



## teqniq (Apr 16, 2018)

It's the nasty party innit.


----------



## GarveyLives (Apr 16, 2018)

Analysed here:

Hounding Commonwealth citizens is no accident. It’s cruelty by design


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 16, 2018)

Yeah, I read that, it's the origins of her choking mania for deporting people / hostile environments etc that I'm trying to understand. 

She makes Michael Howard look kind by comparison.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 16, 2018)

ddraig said:


> surely if there is a record of anything like NI payments or school records before 1971 it should be a simple case
> also find it hard to believe there was no record made in 1971



So do I, but it seems there wasn't. It's a cock up of large proportions.

I don't know how good the NI database is going back that far, or if it is in easily searchable form? Will school roles going back that far have been kept, and who will search them?

Remember these are totally innocent people.....it's reasonable to send them a questionnaire about previous schools and jobs but the Home office should be doing most of the leg work IMHO.

Some people may have come as babies and may not have had their first job until the 80s. Ultimately we are probably going to have to give some people the benefit of the doubt


----------



## PursuedByBears (Apr 16, 2018)

Plays well with the Daily Mail?


----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> So do I, but it seems there wasn't. It's a cock up of large proportions.
> 
> I don't know how good the NI database is going back that far, or if it is in easily searchable form? Will school roles going back that far have been kept, and who will search them?
> 
> ...


NI records should be good because they are still the basis on which you get your state pension and as such, will go back to that period.


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 16, 2018)

Truly shameful behaviour by our decision makers. Can only hope that the Torys are again demonstrating to the younger voters what a bunch of class ridden cunts they are and how they deserve to be wiped off the political map.


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 16, 2018)

ddraig said:


> surely if there is a record of anything like NI payments or school records before 1971 it should be a simple case
> also find it hard to believe there was no record made in 1971


By definition many people affected by this will not have proceeded very far through the school system and will be likely to have lived in areas where the schools they went to will have been merged or rationalised, or in some cases will have simply ceased to exist years ago. They will live in areas where doctors surgeries will have experienced the same sorts of change. They will have worked for employers who have long since gone out of business.

You can't always rely on centralised official record keeping. I've been struck off the list for the GP I was with on instructions from the Health Authority who sent out a letter to find out if I was still alive but to my old address. When I was applying for state pension I discovered I could not do so online because the automated identity check repeatedly said no. This was resolved by ringing in person, but this took several attempts because HMRC records didn't have details of the address I have been living at for well over 25 years, nor the one before that. Despite the fact that throughout that period it had received annual returns with my current address on. I know because it was me that filed them. 

Much paper based official record keeping was quietly shambolic and designed for a rather different world. And not insignificant amounts of it no longer exist or are effectively inaccessible.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Apr 16, 2018)

If you want to understand what this represents, and what it means, ask yourself just how dull and grey the UK would be without the folks who chose to make the brave step to come here and work. Work. Not a free pass - they came here to work and often perform roles that other folks did not wish to undertake.

The Tories are cunts.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 16, 2018)

In the tech world people often talk about their concerns about too much data being collected by different organisations, and being kept for too long. In this case it seems we haven't kept enough


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 16, 2018)

PursuedByBears said:


> Plays well with the Daily Mail?


Not this time it seems.

Outrage as Britain’s Windrush immigrants are SNUBBED at this week’s Commonwealth summit | Daily Mail Online

I suppose it's too much to hope that this could prove to be a real turning point?


----------



## GarveyLives (Apr 16, 2018)

​


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 16, 2018)

GarveyLives said:


> ​



A good speech. I hope the media sticks with this until it is sorted, and Labour keeps the pressure on.


----------



## Mordi (Apr 16, 2018)

8115 said:


> I have read that the required proof is 5 pieces of documentary evidence for each year in the UK although the Home Office have said they will "work with" people to help them build their case. I think most people would struggle to put that together.



Definitely. There was an interview on R4 this afternoon with someone who'd been put into detention and threatened with deportation (he said he was detained on Monday and they booked a flight for Wednesday). He said the Home Office went to those lengths because for two years he was unemployed, not contributing to NI and so couldn't prove to them he hadn't left and re-entered the country.


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 16, 2018)

Wilf said:


> NI records should be good because they are still the basis on which you get your state pension and as such, will go back to that period.


As long as you can establish that you are the person the records refer to - which in some cases may be an interesting catch 22 - then broadly yes. But as I know from my own NI record statement that 'broadly' can have significant gaps. A new system was introduced for recording NI in 1975. Detailed annual records are not readily available before that only a summarized figure to that point. Records of the actual NI amounts paid over, as opposed to a simple tally of weeks for which NI was recorded as paid (the number of stamps you had) only became important after the introduction of SERPs in 1978. Looking at my own pre-1975 total I cannot reconcile the number of weekly NI credits recorded to the number of weeks I know I had worked before that.  

There will also be gaps if you worked for an arsehole who didn't actually make the return or pay over what he had deducted. I discovered I had worked for two such. And I discovered that for the period during the early 80s when I alternated periods of part-time work with periods signed on I had clearly not been credited with the periods of unemployment as I should have been. 

My working life has been far more straightforward than many peoples, and unlike many women for example, there are no very long gaps in my employment record. There are lots of people for whom that has not been the case.

Relying on the NI record to determine a total of qualifying years and the amount due under the now abolished SERPs regime is one thing. Relying on it as a record that you were actually in the country is quite another.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 16, 2018)

Well IMHO people should be asked when they came to the UK, what schools they went to and details of when they started work. Where possible these should be checked. Where they can't be, the individual must simply be assumed to be telling the truth. 

If someone came to the UK as a baby in 1971 the first data we may have might be from the late 80s. So be it, providing dates tally, we must accept that. Sort this rapidly and don't repeat the mistake post Brexit.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 16, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I'm going to say something here not everyone will agree with, and that's this.....none of this was a issue before we had mass EU immigration.
> 
> Race relations steadily improved through the 80s and 90s. Only nasty fringe parties like NF and BNP talked about deportation. Up to the mid 00s most people were sympathetic to asylum seekers.
> 
> ...


As David Lammy said, the Tory party allowed themselves to get manipulated by #kipper cunts and this is the shameful result of this.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 16, 2018)

marty21 said:


> As David Lammy said, the Tory party allowed themselves to get manipulated by #kipper cunts and this is the shameful result of this.


The Tory party are kipper cunts
And David Lammy is a Tory


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2018)

This thread seems to have become exactly what I cautioned against at the start - a discussion on how better to administrate a cruel racist policy so the 'good' immigrants aren't caught up in it. Good work.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 16, 2018)

ska invita said:


> The Tory party are kipper cunts
> And David Lammy is a Tory


I'm not a big fan of Lammy but I wouldn't call him a Tory.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 16, 2018)

The insaneness of unmitigated free movement between European countries which instigated Brexit etc shouldn’t have been somehow muddled with the status of those who plugged labour shortages decades ago and have been here for years. That the govt didn’t have the foresight to see this coming from their policies further illustrates their ineptness to govern.


----------



## agricola (Apr 16, 2018)

steeplejack said:


> can someone please explain why Theresa May, Amber Rudd's boss, is so _consumingly obsessed_ with immigration?
> 
> she always has been, dating back to her days before office, and I am absolutely at a loss to understand why.
> 
> ...



I don't think this is about May being obsessed with immigration to be honest - the way in which this policy was implemented (against advice, reason, the lessons of experience and/or sense) is very similar to the way in which almost all the significant policies in the Home Office of her day were implemented.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Apr 16, 2018)

Forget 'Rivers Of Blood'.

Instead.

'Rivers of Love'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 16, 2018)

ska invita said:


> The Tory party are kipper cunts
> *And David Lammy is a Tory*


Eh? Calm down..certainly not _red_ through and through but not a Tory.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 16, 2018)

agricola said:


> I don't think this is about May being obsessed with immigration to be honest - the way in which this policy was implemented (against advice, reason, the lessons of experience and/or sense) is very similar to the way in which almost all the significant policies in the Home Office of her day were implemented.



hence my use of the word "obsession"...pressing ahead with a policy against advice, experience and reason just...because. 

I can't understand it. Nor can I understand how people bring themselves to vote for such an inhuman, cruel, vicious bigot.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 16, 2018)

Windrush U-turn is welcome, but May's policy was just cruel


----------



## captainmission (Apr 16, 2018)

It's curious seeing labour get on their high horse about this considering they introduced the legislation that started this process. The immigration, asylum and nationality act 2006 that bought in employer immigration checks. Various changes to the benefit legislation with ever increasing demands placed on migrants. Charging oversea nationals for NHS treatment that again required immigration checks. These are the policies that caused problems many of the cases that have gained media attention. They pre-date May environment of hostility by almost a decade.

About a decade ago I was working at an advice centre in an area with quite a large older African and Caribbean population and had a whole spate people loosing jobs, refused benefits and left destitute. And if they could scrape together the fee for an application maybe they'd get a decision in 6 - 18 months. About six months ago I was representing in a social security tribunal for a who'd come from Ghana 50 years ago guy who'd been refused ESA 13 months ago for being a person subject to immigration control. Thankfully his some what colourful life of being in and out of prison and on probahtion made for quite strong evidence his was in the uk for that period. But again it was labour introduced legislation that he fell foul of.

Trying to understand developments in immigration policy by looking at whether the bad party is in power is a mistake. Whether it be dog-whistle conservatives and frothing at the mouth open racists or woke neoliberals and champions of multicultralism, both result in increasing restrictions on migrants. This is the same UK as it is across Europe and the USA. Thinking this is restricted to May being under the sway of 'kippers and racist Brexit voters is nonsense.

It's also extremely worrying in terms of what it means for current government policy for EEA citizens post Brexit. The current plan is continue using EU legislation to determine settled status for EEA residents, albeit with a simplified application process. EEA citizens and 'generation Windrush' are in a similar sort of boat regarding their settled status. In both cases there settled status relies on their circumstances and history in the UK rather than a grant of leave or visa given by the government. Just like 'generation Windrush' there's going to be a lot of people caught out by the evidence requirement- especially since EEA freedom of movement is about free movement of labour and services- not people.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 16, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I'm going to say something here not everyone will agree with, and that's this.....none of this was a issue before we had mass EU immigration.
> 
> Race relations steadily improved through the 80s and 90s. Only nasty fringe parties like NF and BNP talked about deportation. Up to the mid 00s most people were sympathetic to asylum seekers.
> 
> ...



As you and I know we have been discussing this issue of Windrush immigration status on Brixton forum before this thread started. Understandably as Brixton is home to Windrush generation.

I noticed this thread and had a look.

Back on Brixton forum when I brought up parallels between the way recent East Europeans and Wiindrush generation have been  treated you came back saying that "we" are talking just about Windrush.

So what happened? You didn't think I would look at this thread?

As I posted up on Brixton a while back a Afro Carribbean friend of mine in Brixton ( whose father was Windrush) said to me the way people are going on about East Europeans is the same way that people used to go about his Father's generation who came here after WW2.

There are parallels between the Windrush generation and East Europeans who came here.

After WW2 Commonwealth citizens had free movement. Due to racist/ anti immigrant backlash in 1971 this was curtailed. Existing Windrush being given leave to remain. Which is inferior to what they had before.

The same could happen to existing EU citizens here.

UKIP, as my Brixton Afro Carribbean friend said are racist, pushed the immigration issue to promote Brexit.

I notice you aren't putting up post like this on Brixton forum.

May "hostile environment" wasn't forced on Tories.

This issue came up at work today. The people I work with aren't heavy politicos. They like me in London work with "immigrants" and have partners  ( including me) from EU and beyond.

What you are saying is bollox.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 16, 2018)

marty21 said:


> As David Lammy said, the Tory party allowed themselves to get manipulated by #kipper cunts and this is the shameful result of this.



That involvement could/does only work though if the Tory party were/are complicit and they are, they are the base of those positions also... Extreme nationalist groups like the NF, BNP, EDL and UKIP give the Tories something to hide behind whilst being the ones institutionalising the policies and ideas they claim are just too OPENLY right wing for them.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 16, 2018)

captainmission said:


> It's curious seeing labour get on their high horse about this considering they introduced the legislation that started this process. The immigration, asylum and nationality act 2006 that bought in employer immigration checks. Various changes to the benefit legislation with ever increasing demands placed on migrants. Charging oversea nationals for NHS treatment that again required immigration checks. These are the policies that caused problems many of the cases that have gained media attention. They pre-date May environment of hostility by almost a decade.
> 
> About a decade ago I was working at an advice centre in an area with quite a large older African and Caribbean population and had a whole spate people loosing jobs, refused benefits and left destitute. And if they could scrape together the fee for an application maybe they'd get a decision in 6 - 18 months. About six months ago I was representing in a social security tribunal for a who'd come from Ghana 50 years ago guy who'd been refused ESA 13 months ago for being a person subject to immigration control. Thankfully his some what colourful life of being in and out of prison and on probahtion made for quite strong evidence his was in the uk for that period. But again it was labour introduced legislation that he fell foul of.
> 
> ...


Yes, you could argue that Labour, certainly in the second half of their time in office, was more hostile to immigrants than the Tory governments of Thatcher and Major.  There was of course a lot discrimination against black and asian people in the 80s and 90s,but not necessarily government hostility. I don't remember immigration coming up much at all in the elections of 87 , 92, 97 or 2001. I remember a distinct gear change in 2005 with Michael Howard and perhaps Labour responded to that. The concern at that point was asylum seekers, EU migration was still in its infancy.

But then there was another gear shift in 2010 of course, and we were well on course for the present mess. It's too late now, but David Cameron's first move in office should have been to ask the EU for an immigration pause, and to kick up a stink until he got it. Ironically enough if the nettle had been grasped in 2010 ish we'd probably be close to being able to take the pause button off by now.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 16, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Yes, you could argue that Labour, certainly in the second half of their time in office, was more hostile to immigrants than the Tory governments of Thatcher and Major.  There was of course a lot discrimination against black and asian people in the 80s and 90s,but not necessarily government hostility. I don't remember immigration coming up much at all in the elections of 87 , 92, 97 or 2001. I remember a distinct gear change in 2005 with Michael Howard and perhaps Labour responded to that. The concern at that point was asylum seekers, EU migration was still in its infancy.
> 
> But then there was another gear shift in 2010 of course, and we were well on course for the present mess. It's too late now, but David Cameron's first move in office should have been to ask the EU for an immigration pause, and to kick up a stink until he got it. Ironically enough if the nettle had been grasped in 2010 ish we'd probably be close to being able to take the pause button off by now.




How about coming back on Brixton forum and voicing your views on EU immigration.

You right wing cunt.


----------



## captainmission (Apr 16, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Yes, you could argue that Labour, certainly in the second half of their time in office, was more hostile to immigrants than the Tory governments of Thatcher and Major.  There was of course a lot discrimination against black and asian people in the 80s and 90s,but not necessarily government hostility. I don't remember immigration coming up much at all in the elections of 87 , 92, 97 or 2001. I remember a distinct gear change in 2005 with Michael Howard and perhaps Labour responded to that. The concern at that point was asylum seekers, EU migration was still in its infancy.



Apart from it wasn't just the second half- the late 1990's and early 2000's saw massive extension of the detention system, the removal of support for destitute asylum seekers and massive practical barriers that stopped people claiming asylum in the first place. Asylum claims peaked in 2003 and sharply declined after that, largely because of the harshness of the policies new labour introduced. Public opinion regarding asylum seekers was trailing government policy, not forcing it. Certainly the tory governemnt of the 80's and 90's was more expressive in their open racism than the urbane liberals of new labour, yet still had a less restrictive immigration policy.


----------



## GarveyLives (Apr 16, 2018)

Uncomfortable truths ...

My grandfather was part of the Windrush generation and he would be shocked by the treatment of migrants today


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 16, 2018)

seems like a chunk of law was quietly changed in 2014 



> All longstanding Commonwealth residents were protected from enforced removal by a specific exemption in the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act – a clause removed in the updated 2014 legislation.



from guardian article here


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> this leaflet (and accompanying DVD) created by the Home Office for those *cough* accidental deportees exposes the lie of the accidental bit. (found here)



This appears to have been compiled by someone whose only knowledge or experiences of the Caribbean come from listening to Dreadlock Holiday by 10CC, they may as well have put ‘concentrate on trucking right’
Appalling.


----------



## bimble (Apr 17, 2018)

Two times i've been on flights from uk to Jamaica where deportees were on board. These were commercial virgin flights, and each person being deported was 'accompanied' by big blokes in uniform (i remember they were in uniform but now can't remember what) and they were _physically restrained into their seats_. I presumed they were people being deported after doing a certain amount of prison time or something but actually I have no clue, maybe its the same treatment if you can't produce the necessary paperwork about what infant school you went to.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> How about coming back on Brixton forum and voicing your views on EU immigration.
> 
> You right wing cunt.


Charmed I'm sure 

I didn't put this on the Brixton forum because that wasn't the place for yet another debate about Brexit!

But I'm perfectly open with people about which way I voted (out) and why ( to reduce immigration)

If that makes me a ' right wing cunt' so be it, there are a lot of us out there in that case.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

This twitter thread is on point - read it.


----------



## Athos (Apr 17, 2018)

captainmission said:


> It's curious seeing labour get on their high horse about this considering they introduced the legislation that started this process. The immigration, asylum and nationality act 2006 that bought in employer immigration checks. Various changes to the benefit legislation with ever increasing demands placed on migrants. Charging oversea nationals for NHS treatment that again required immigration checks. These are the policies that caused problems many of the cases that have gained media attention. They pre-date May environment of hostility by almost a decade.



Policies of a government in which David Lammy was a minister. His outrage rings a bit hollow, now.


----------



## Athos (Apr 17, 2018)

As much as I despise the Tories, I don't think Labour are much better on this. Both have consistently courted the racist vote (whilst simultaneously not wanting to disturb  to any significant extent the benefits to capital of a trans-national labour market), in their self-interested grasping.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2018)

Athos said:


> Policies of a government in which David Lammy was a minister. His outrage rings a bit hollow, now.



David Lammy's very good at suddenly being furious about stuff he didn't give a shit about last week, before it was in all the papers.


----------



## Athos (Apr 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> David Lammy's very good at suddenly being furious about stuff he didn't give a shit about last week, before it was in all the papers.


He's vile.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The insaneness of unmitigated free movement between European countries which instigated Brexit etc shouldn’t have been somehow muddled with the status of those who plugged labour shortages decades ago and have been here for years. That the govt didn’t have the foresight to see this coming from their policies further illustrates their ineptness to govern.



So a bunch of people who weren't able to vote in the referendum are the ones who 'instigated' brexit?

I'd love to see your working out for that one mate.

I'd also love to see how you worked out that EU migrants have not filled skills shortages, have not been here for years etc.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

It's undeniable that european free movement was one of the wedge issues that made Brexit possible, whatever you feel about free movement per se.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> So a bunch of people who weren't able to vote in the referendum are the ones who 'instigated' brexit?



I was talking about immigration policy. Presumably then you think the two aren’t linked?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 17, 2018)

Or what Killer B said.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I was talking about immigration policy. Presumably then you think the two aren’t linked?



There's a link but it's disingenuous in the extreme to miss out the middle step, namely a bunch of people deliberately stirring up division. It is not true to state that mass EU migration was destined to lead to UKIP and thence to brexit, and in any case looking back at how things played out and then saying 'I knew this would happen' is not a particularly helpful form of analysis.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> It's undeniable that european free movement was one of the wedge issues that made Brexit possible, whatever you feel about free movement per se.



Made possible is not the same as 'instigated'. Instigated implies deliberate action.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

You seem to be creating some windmills to tilt at there.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Not this time it seems.
> 
> Outrage as Britain’s Windrush immigrants are SNUBBED at this week’s Commonwealth summit | Daily Mail Online
> 
> I suppose it's too much to hope that this could prove to be a real turning point?



WOW they've gone with it front page as well!!

'Windrush scandal' and McPartlin apology


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> You seem to be creating some windmills to tilt at there.



Whilst you seem to be supporting Magnus' invocation of a good immigrant/bad immigrant dichotomy.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

Where?


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

It's an important discussion, probably best you don't just come steaming in arguing against positions you've invented for other posters.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> David Lammy's very good at suddenly being furious about stuff he didn't give a shit about last week, before it was in all the papers.



That's not strictly true though is it?

I'm no fan of Lammy's but he does have a history of taking an interest in immigration issues, the abomination that is Yarlswood etc.

His hansard record show as such for example:

Written questions and answers

If Diane Abbot had have made that speech some would equally use it as a stick to hit her with and accuse her of not caring before...which would also be bullshit.

Just because it isn't making the popular news doesn't mean people are not involved.


----------



## bemused (Apr 17, 2018)

I've dug out my naturalisation papers because I'm paranoid. 

What an awfully shitty way to treat these poor people.


----------



## Athos (Apr 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> That's not strictly true though is it?
> 
> I'm no fan of Lammy's but he does have a history of taking an interest in immigration issues, the abomination that is Yarlswood etc.
> 
> ...



David Lammy's principal area of interest is David Lammy.  He served in the government that got this ball rolling, which is why he's a hypocrite (as is Diane 'send my kid to public school' Abbot,  incidentally).


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

From the twitter thread I posted earlier, as it's not just 'these poor people' that need to be part of the discussion:

_let’s be clear, most deported persons are not your Gran or some WW2 war vet. We can’t work this out with ‘good migrant’ myopia. Some have criminal records. Some worked illegally. Many overstayed. These are how exile is justified so we need to unsettle these discourses.

This is about dads of British kids who sold drugs b/c not allowed to work. Mums of kids taken into care. Or women who worked caring for our elderly without papers, to remit back to Jamaica, then caught by hostile environment.

This is 19 year old boys who moved to the UK aged 4 to join their mum and were criminalised as teens and are now living in Kingston garrison with an estranged auntie. 

These are the bad migrants who look to the world like British citizens.

So yes. The booklet is bad. But it is part of policy which justifies the banishment of migrants that almost no one has been defending. And I include the Labour politicians making the most noise. Be brave, fight the hard fight, make a fuller case against this state violence._


----------



## Athos (Apr 17, 2018)

Athos said:


> David Lammy's principal area of interest is David Lammy.  He served in the government that got this ball rolling, which is why he's a hypocrite (as is Diane 'send my kid to public school' Abbot,  incidentally).



Eta: But let's not get side tracked - we do at least agree that what's happening now is shameful, and ought to be a focus for action.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> It's an important discussion, probably best you don't just come steaming in arguing against positions you've invented for other posters.



I've not invented anything. Magnus clearly said we shouldn't get windrush generation immigrants 'muddled' with this other bunch of people who, despite also having come here 'legally' and in good faith, can apparently be blamed for the UK's current political woes.

Bloody immigrants, coming over here and _forcing_ people to invent UKIP.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've not invented anything. Magnus clearly said we shouldn't get windrush generation immigrants 'muddled' with this other bunch of *people who*, despite also having come here 'legally' and in good faith, *can apparently be blamed* for the UK's current political woes.
> 
> Bloody immigrants, coming over here and _forcing_ people to invent UKIP.



That's a very dishonest misrepresentation of what was said, isn't it? It was clearly the policy which was being blamed, not the people which the policy allowed to enter the UK.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> That's a very dishonest misrepresentation of what was said, isn't it? It was clearly the policy which was being blamed, not the people which the policy allowed to enter the UK.



Put yourself in the position of an EU migrant who has built a life here and now has to listen to everyone and his mum, including people who call themselves progressives, describing the fact you were allowed to live that life as if it were a ghastly mistake. Then imagine being told not to take it personally.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Two times i've been on flights from uk to Jamaica where deportees were on board. These were commercial virgin flights, and each person being deported was 'accompanied' by big blokes in uniform (i remember they were in uniform but now can't remember what) and they were _physically restrained into their seats_. I presumed they were people being deported after doing a certain amount of prison time or something but actually I have no clue, maybe its the same treatment if you can't produce the necessary paperwork about what infant school you went to.


did you register your complaint or speak up?


----------



## bimble (Apr 17, 2018)

ddraig said:


> did you register your complaint or speak up?


No. I just sat there like everyone else.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Put yourself in the position of an EU migrant who has built a life here and now has to listen to everyone and his mum, including people who call themselves progressives, describing the fact you were allowed to live that life as if it were a ghastly mistake. Then imagine being told not to take it personally.


No-one is asking you not to take something personally. Just to argue with or against things people are actually posting.


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 17, 2018)

James O'Brien is doing a good show about this on LBC


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Put yourself in the position of an EU migrant who has built a life here and now has to listen to everyone and his mum, including people who call themselves progressives, describing the fact you were allowed to live that life as if it were a ghastly mistake. Then imagine being told not to take it personally.


Ok Spooky Frank. Your turn. What would you do? Simple yes/no question. Do you think everyone on planet earth, all 7 billion of us, should have the right to come to the UK, work, claim benefits, use the NHS etc etc.

If yes, how would we even begin to cope with even 1% of people taking up the offer?

And if no, where do we draw the line?


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

I don't think a general immigration debate is called for either. Start a new thread if you want to get into that.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think a general immigration debate is called for either. Start a new thread if you want to get into that.


How, in the kindest possible way, do you say "I wasn't talking to you"?


----------



## teqniq (Apr 17, 2018)

Probably just a nasty coincidence, but I too wondered


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> How, in the kindest possible way, do you say "I wasn't talking to you"?


If you're wanting to have a private conversation, do it by PM. otherwise you can expect responses from anyone on the site.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> No. I just sat there like everyone else.


nice


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> If you're wanting to have a private conversation, do it by PM. otherwise you can expect responses from anyone on the site.


Sure. But I was specifically directing a question at a specific poster. That is allowed , surely?

And anyway on the very first page of the thread you said the Windrush generation were * 
"the tip of the iceberg. We need to make sure the argument is widened out at all opportunity." *


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 17, 2018)

ddraig said:


> nice



Oh give over.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 17, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Oh give over.


pardon?
you don't think speaking up is worth it or has worked in the past?


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 17, 2018)

ddraig said:


> pardon?
> you don't think speaking up is worth it or has worked in the past?



At the point of being sat on a plane surrounded by holiday makers, no. I don't think saying anything would serve any purpose apart from possibly getting yourself kicked off the plane.


----------



## bimble (Apr 17, 2018)

ddraig i am a coward yes, you never know maybe a word from an upset tourist would have seen them take the restraints off and apologise.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 17, 2018)

deportations have been stopped by fellow passengers in the past


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Sure. But I was specifically directing a question at a specific poster. That is allowed , surely?
> 
> And anyway on the very first page of the thread you said the Windrush generation were *
> "the tip of the iceberg. We need to make sure the argument is widened out at all opportunity." *


quite. but 'open borders - yes/no' adds nothing but noise to the debate. as you know.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 17, 2018)

ddraig said:


> deportations have been stopped by fellow passengers in the past



Presumably this is how you spend your free time or is it just something you expect others to do?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2018)

ddraig said:


> nice



Whay would you have said to those two heavies to make them see the error of their ways?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Presumably this is how you spend your free time or is it just something you expect others to do?


not getting into a back and forth with you and could do with out your twisting or point scoring
I would speak up and kick off and try and get other passengers involved if I was on a plane and someone was being deported
you wouldn't at least speak up in that situation?


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

ddraig said:


> point scoring


erm.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Whay would you have said to those two heavies to make them see the error of their ways?


I would protest to the crew and try and get other passengers involved


----------



## ddraig (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> erm.


?
don't want to derail this into a deportation on planes thread but i will respond if people quote me
how is asking someone if they spoke up point scoring?


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> quite. but 'open borders - yes/no' adds nothing but noise to the debate. as you know.


I'm sorry, I'm confused.

You don't want to just talk about Windrush, you want it broader than that, but asking another poster for their wider views on immigration is off limits? Just how broad would sir like his debate? We aim to please


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

one without arseholes stirring it.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> one without arseholes stirring it.


I'm not 'stirring' anything. I'm asking a perfectly reasonable question of another poster.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

you've got literally no-one fooled.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> you've got literally no-one fooled.


Fooled about what?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 17, 2018)

ddraig said:


> you wouldn't at least speak up in that situation?



Not sure what I’d do. But what I wouldn’t do would be to deride others for what they did or didn’t do.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

This thread from Akala has some interesting background and analysis too: 

Thread by @akalamusic: "Post war 'mass migration' myths and realities, a thread.So you may have seen lots of seemingly ridiculous commonwealth deportation cases rec […]"


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 17, 2018)

ddraig said:


> deportations have been stopped by fellow passengers in the past


Delayed maybe. Completely stopped, I doubt.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 17, 2018)

ddraig said:


> I would speak up and kick off and try and get other passengers involved if I was on a plane and someone was being deported


How do you know what he's being deported for?


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> This thread from Akala has some interesting background and analysis too:
> 
> Thread by @akalamusic: "Post war 'mass migration' myths and realities, a thread.So you may have seen lots of seemingly ridiculous commonwealth deportation cases rec […]"


So you want a broader debate, but only on your terms? Don't work that way I'm afraid.

Ok, question for you. Should the 1948 situation have continued indefinitely? There are 2.4 billion people in the Commonwealth. Should they all have right of abode in the UK?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I'm not 'stirring' anything. I'm asking a perfectly reasonable question of another poster.


pull the other one sonny jim


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> So you want a broader debate, but only on your terms? Don't work that way I'm afraid.
> 
> Ok, question for you. Should the 1948 situation have continued indefinitely? There are 2.4 billion people in the Commonwealth. Should they all have right of abode in the UK?


this 2.4 bn does this include the uk?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Presumably this is how you spend your free time or is it just something you expect others to do?


yes


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> How do you know what he's being deported for?


Correct. He may even have been a Jamaican national who had committed a crime at home and tried to flee to the UK and was being deported back to Jamaica. 

He may also have been a Jamaican national who committed a crime in the UK, had served part of his sentence and had chosen to serve the remainder in a Jamaican jail.

The very heavy security would suggest he was on his way to Jamaican custody rather than 'just' being deported.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> this 2.4 bn does this include the uk?



I believe it does, but UK population is less than .1 billion that's irrelevant really.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> The very heavy security would suggest he was on his way to Jamaican custody rather than 'just' being deported.



No it doesn't. The heavy security is because he was male.

It's not unusual at all.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> No it doesn't. The heavy security is because he was male.
> 
> It's not unusual at all.


So if someone is 'just' being deported for eg overstaying a visa, they go to all this trouble rather than just simply making sure you get on the plane and confirming your arrival? 

Excessive, to say the least?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> So if someone is 'just' being deported for eg overstaying a visa, they go to all this trouble rather than just simply making sure you get on the plane and confirming your arrival?
> 
> Excessive, to say the least?



For someone who claimed above to know what they are talking about you are now asking a lot of questions.

It is common for commercial flights to be used to deport people. G4S are well known to have contracts for this kind of escort work for example.

Instead of assuming you could do a bit of research.


----------



## bimble (Apr 17, 2018)

Yes, a quick google suggests it may have been G4s officers . And that restraints are used for 'regular' deportations on commercial flights.
Chaos over restraint rules for deportees
https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/543806/DSO_07-2016_Use_of_Restraints.pdf

^ wow:


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2018)

The brilliant Right to Remain have some guidance on what individuals can do in terms of lobbying commercial airlines btw.

Right to Remain Toolkit: airline campaigning


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I believe it does, but UK population is less than .1 billion that's irrelevant really.


yeh. you've yet to adduce a reason for everyone from e.g. india or canada or australia to come here.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> So if someone is 'just' being deported for eg overstaying a visa, they go to all this trouble rather than just simply making sure you get on the plane and confirming your arrival?
> 
> Excessive, to say the least?



I suppose without a burly escort it would be easy enough to get booted off a plane by simply kicking off before departure no?

To be honest, if I was about to be deported unwillingly I'd kick off anyway. Just for the lol.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> I suppose without a burly escort it would be easy enough to get booted off a plane by simply kicking off before departure no?
> .


I guess so.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 17, 2018)

I'm hoping a lot of compensation will eventually come to all those who have lost jobs and been denied healthcare/benefits and _especially_ those who've been held in detention centres.

Where there's blame. There's a claim. You Home Office fucks.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 17, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> I suppose without a burly escort it would be easy enough to get booted off a plane by simply kicking off before departure no?



It would, but you can get 5 grand fine or even porridge for disrupting a flight.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 17, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> It would, but you can get 5 grand fine or even porridge for disrupting a flight.



Worst care scenario, but there may be little left to lose anyway. It may even be preferable to end up in a British jail and play for time rather than get forcibly removed to another country.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> I suppose without a burly escort it would be easy enough to get booted off a plane by simply kicking off before departure no?
> 
> To be honest, if I was about to be deported unwillingly I'd kick off anyway. Just for the lol.



People have died from the 'restraint techniques' used during deportations. And the guilty parties walked free.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Charmed I'm sure
> 
> I didn't put this on the Brixton forum because that wasn't the place for yet another debate about Brexit!
> 
> ...



Having a look at my posts today. Stand by what I posted. 

However I shouldn't have got abusive and apoligise for that.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> People have died from the 'restraint techniques' used during deportations. And the guilty parties walked free.



Very true. Though I'd still probably be using every trick in the book if they tried to forcibly extradite me on a plane full of holidaymakers. No way I'd let G4S take me away quietly.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> So you want a broader debate, but only on your terms? Don't work that way I'm afraid.
> 
> Ok, question for you. Should the 1948 situation have continued indefinitely? There are 2.4 billion people in the Commonwealth. Should they all have right of abode in the UK?


I was looking at a family tree at the weekend and was reminded that most of my family immigrated to Lancashire from Ireland in the 20s – only a generation before Windrush. Funny, as I’d never really thought of myself as from an immigrant family before… it’s been dwelling on my mind ever since, especially in the light of these political ructions this week.

So... to answer your question: I don’t think future generations should be denied the opportunities my great-grandparents, and the Windrush generation, and all the other generations of immigrants to this country were allowed (often reluctantly). I don’t think anyone should be prevented from living and working and making a life for themselves wherever they choose. And I don’t just think that should be true for commonwealth immigrants, I think it should be true for people from anywhere in the world.

That’s the position we should we starting off at – not ‘how do we stop these 2.6 billion people coming here and camping out in my benefits’, but ‘how do we manage a world with full free movement of people’.

It’s a difficult question, and I can’t say I have the answer – it’s certainly impossible to imagine under the current geopolitical conditions we live in - but that’s the question we should be working hard to answer, not _how do we build a strong enough wall to keep the bastards out_ – which really is the only other response.


----------



## agricola (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> I was looking at a family tree at the weekend and was reminded that most of my family immigrated to Lancashire from Ireland in the 20s – only a generation before Windrush. Funny, as I’d never really thought of myself as from an immigrant family before… it’s been dwelling on my mind ever since, especially in the light of these political ructions this week.
> 
> So... to answer your question: I don’t think future generations should be denied the opportunities my great-grandparents, and the Windrush generation, and all the other generations of immigrants to this country were allowed (often reluctantly). I don’t think anyone should be prevented from living and working and making a life for themselves wherever they choose. And I don’t just think that should be true for commonwealth immigrants, I think it should be true for people from anywhere in the world.
> 
> ...



Not to have a go at you here but it perhaps should be pointed out that the Windrush generation were not immigrants, at least in the sense of people from the Republic moving to the UK would have been or that people moving from Jamaica to the UK would be now.  They were British passport holders moving from one area ruled by the British state to another one - ie: they were doing what I did when I moved from North Wales to London.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> I was looking at a family tree at the weekend and was reminded that most of my family immigrated to Lancashire from Ireland in the 20s – only a generation before Windrush. Funny, as I’d never really thought of myself as from an immigrant family before… it’s been dwelling on my mind ever since, especially in the light of these political ructions this week.
> 
> So... to answer your question: I don’t think future generations should be denied the opportunities my great-grandparents, and the Windrush generation, and all the other generations of immigrants to this country were allowed (often reluctantly). I don’t think anyone should be prevented from living and working and making a life for themselves wherever they choose. And I don’t just think that should be true for commonwealth immigrants, I think it should be true for people from anywhere in the world.
> 
> ...



A very good post, actually.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

agricola said:


> Not to have a go at you here but it perhaps should be pointed out that the Windrush generation were not immigrants, at least in the sense of people from the Republic moving to the UK would have been or that people moving from Jamaica to the UK would be now.  They were British passport holders moving from one area ruled by the British state to another one - ie: they were doing what I did when I moved from North Wales to London.


I don't care. That's not why I think their rights should be defended.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> I was looking at a family tree at the weekend and was reminded that most of my family immigrated to Lancashire from Ireland in the 20s – only a generation before Windrush. Funny, as I’d never really thought of myself as from an immigrant family before… it’s been dwelling on my mind ever since, especially in the light of these political ructions this week.
> 
> So... to answer your question: I don’t think future generations should be denied the opportunities my great-grandparents, and the Windrush generation, and all the other generations of immigrants to this country were allowed (often reluctantly). I don’t think anyone should be prevented from living and working and making a life for themselves wherever they choose. And I don’t just think that should be true for commonwealth immigrants, I think it should be true for people from anywhere in the world.
> 
> ...


there is of course another response, which is can people be made comfortable where they are. that large numbers of people are unhappy where they are can be seen from the number of people risking death to get over the med etc. i am not persuaded that the choice is 'how do we manage a world with full free movement of people' v 'build a big wall', as a great deal of movement in the world is not free.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> can people be made comfortable where they are.


This is an important part of the _how do we manage a world of free movement _question. Probably the most important part.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> there is of course another response, which is can people be made comfortable where they are.


Yes, and that is broadly the approach I would take, thats why, for example, I think overseas aid is money well spent.


----------



## agricola (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't care. That's not why I think their rights should be defended.



You should care though; they are after all the best evidence that exists in order to help answer your question "how do we manage a world with full free movement of people".


----------



## bimble (Apr 17, 2018)

This is pretty good i think for a bit of context (you have to click on it to read whole thing)


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is pretty good i think for a bit of context (you have to click on it to read whole thing)



this is good, i was thinking of posting it earlier but thought I was posting too many links to twitter.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 17, 2018)

Really not enough facepalms for this one.

Home Office destroyed Windrush landing cards, says ex-staffer



> The Home Office destroyed thousands of landing card slips recording Windrush immigrants’ arrival dates in the UK, despite staff warnings that the move would make it harder to check the records of older Caribbean-born residents experiencing residency difficulties.
> 
> When staff were asked to find evidence of an arrival from the Caribbean or other former colonies and had difficulty tracing any other records, senior officers would request the key to the basement of the neighbouring building and consult the landing cards. They recorded the names, dates of arrival and in some cases the name of the ship.
> 
> After the destruction of the archive, when an individual requested confirmation of an arrival date, staff had to reply stating there was no record of it.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

agricola said:


> You should care though; they are after all the best evidence that exists in order to help answer your question "how do we manage a world with full free movement of people".


Sure, it's sort of useful as far as that's concerned, but atm it's something that's being used as a wedge to create the good immigrant (not an immigrant at all actually!) / bad immigrant dichotomy.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 17, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> Really not enough facepalms for this one.
> 
> Home Office destroyed Windrush landing cards, says ex-staffer



I am neither surprised or shocked.


----------



## agricola (Apr 17, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> Really not enough facepalms for this one.
> 
> Home Office destroyed Windrush landing cards, says ex-staffer



Hard to see how that isn't a deliberate act; they should be at Kew (and indeed the pre-1960 passenger lists are).


----------



## teuchter (Apr 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> That’s the position we should we starting off at – not ‘how do we stop these 2.6 billion people coming here and camping out in my benefits’, but ‘how do we manage a world with full free movement of people’.
> 
> It’s a difficult question, and I can’t say I have the answer – it’s certainly impossible to imagine under the current geopolitical conditions we live in - but that’s the question we should be working hard to answer, not _how do we build a strong enough wall to keep the bastards out_ – which really is the only other response.



What should we do in the meantime though. While we are "working hard" to answer the right questions rather than the wrong questions - what do we do? Open borders or not? It's a legitimate question.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 17, 2018)

You should've seen the bulk of documents I needed to produce to prove that my wife and I lived together continuously in the UK in our recent Home Office application for leave to remain (not to mention the £2.3k fee).

Not satisfied with a UK marriage certificate from a UK registrar, nor an officially recognised English Language certificate, nor a Life in the UK test certificate (passed), nor countless other previous applications which include biometric data card, police registration certificates, National Insurance numbers, wage slips, fingerprints,  photos, passports, etc etc - They required six _original_ (not photocopied or home printed) and _acceptable _items of official correspondence in both of our names - spread across the entirety of the period from which the application is based on. And these could only be from an approved list of correspondents - (e.g. gas company, water, council tax, bank, phone etc) which meant that I had to try set up the accounts so they are as much as possible in both of our names, and pay extra to have printed bills sent in the mail.

The only thing is, many utility companies don't allow for joint names on bills. They can only have _one_ person listed because the computer says no. So that ruled out the phone company (Virgin) and the water company (Thames Water). And as we have separate bank accounts, there is no joint statement to offer here. The only things conclusively in both of our names are the council tax bill and the gas/electric company bill (Eon).

So, without enough original and official bills in joint names, the Home Office state you then have to provide items of correspondence addressed individually on top of what you can provide. For example - Four items of correspondence in joint names to the same address and two items addressed to each partner at the address. In total *eight* items would need to be submitted. And if you and your partner have no bills or correspondence in joint names, you need to submit *twelve* items (six each) of correspondence, evidencing that you reside together at the same address! Then the impracticality of the whole system really demonstrates itself. What if you only have a PAYG phone with no bills? What if you don't have a landline phone? What if you only use electric power on a key meter? You're basically fucked because you will never have enough documents to satisfy them of their demands. So your right to live with your spouse is void.

And the Home Office weren't able keep one slip of paper which is the only evidence of these peoples right to live here? Fucking bollocks.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> What should we do in the meantime though. While we are "working hard" to answer the right questions rather than the wrong questions - what do we do? Open borders or not? It's a legitimate question.


It's a question that's only seeing one side of the issue, though. It's based on a presentation of only part of the issue as if it was the whole issue. Accepting that this is the whole issue and seeing it as separable from its context is how we get policies like quotas.

Should humans exist without borders? Yes, of course. This is our planet. We are humans. The polities which divide up the land and sea are not natural phenomena; they are created. They are created by people. In the interests of the people? Well, they say so. They say the interests of those who live here (or here, or here) are served by this polity, this state, this edifice of bureaucratic undertaking. But that's not really the case. The rights, the property, the freedom being protected is that of local capital.

The response of the state is the response of local capital.

The response of the working class must be working class solidarity. And that's the side that's missed in this narrative. But don't mistake solidarity for an order from above to be generous. Solidarity is a two way bond. It is horizontal. It is not a top down command. 

I'm a descendant of immigrants in a very similar (though not identical) set of circumstances to the post war "Commonwealth Immigrants". Like them, my ancestors were told they came from a land that was not to be seen as distinct from the centre. It was then, but is not now, part of a greater entity of which Great Britain, and England in particular, was to be seen, so the official version went, as the Motherland. Like them, they came because they were told their labour was wanted. And like them they discovered the welcome was scant and not universal. 

And the divide that was thereby created was very much a tool of rule. 

In response, many of the immigrants of my ancestors' day worked hard to create a politics of working class solidarity. And it was a hard slog. And 140 years later it is still not entirely won. People from my background are still seen by some as other.

But that doesn't mean the endeavour to build solidarity, to build networks of mutual aid, to build bonds of trust is not worth undertaking. It is worth it. Nor is it a passive act. It is neither  meek nor mild, it is a show of strength. Both altruistic and reciprocal, it benefits the participants. It is not cerebral, but practical. It is our best response to attack.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 17, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> You should've seen the bulk of documents I needed to produce to prove that my wife and I lived together continuously in the UK in our recent Home Office application for leave to remain (not to mention the £2.3k payment).
> 
> Not satisfied with a UK marriage certificate from a UK registrar, nor an officially recognised English Language certificate, nor a Life in the UK test certificate (passed), nor countless other previous applications which include biometric data card, police registration certificates, National Insurance numbers, wage slips, fingerprints,  photos, passports, etc etc - They required six _original_ (not photocopied or home printed) and _acceptable _items of official correspondence in both of our names - spread across the entirety of the period from which the application is based on. And these could only be from an approved list of correspondents - (e.g. gas company, water, council tax, bank, phone etc) which meant that I had to try set up the accounts so they are as much as possible in both of our names, and pay extra to have printed bills sent in the mail.
> 
> ...


I've heard similar stories from people who in the end have simply given up, and both left the country.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I've heard similar stories from people who in the end have simply given up, and both left the country.



It's basically a denial of right to a family life, a human right, and this should rightly be up in front of the The European Court of Human Rights.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 17, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> It's a question that's only seeing one side of the issue, though. It's based on a presentation of only part of the issue as if it was the whole issue. Accepting that this is the whole issue and seeing it as separable from its context is how we get policies like quotas.
> 
> Should humans exist without borders? Yes, of course. This is our planet. We are humans. The polities which divide up the land and sea are not natural phenomena; they are created. They are created by people. In the interests of the people? Well, they say so. They say the interests of those who live here (or here, or here) are served by this polity, this state, this edifice of bureaucratic undertaking. But that's not really the case. The rights, the property, the freedom being protected is that of local capital.
> 
> ...


Looking at the question, and seeing it as inseparable from its context, and carefully thinking about all that context, and so on, what is your answer? Should we have completely open borders, or something else? I don't mean in a notional future, I mean in the present, right now.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Looking at the question, and seeing it as inseparable from its context, and carefully thinking about all that context, and so on, what is your answer? Should we have completely open borders, or something else?


I gave my answer. In some detail.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 17, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I gave my answer. In some detail.


You gave a detailed post that didn't answer the question you quoted.

Unless when you said 



> Should humans exist without borders? Yes, of course.



that meant that you think the UK should, in the immediate future, open all its borders fully?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> You gave a detailed post that didn't answer the question you quoted.
> 
> Unless when you said
> 
> ...


You're still thinking in terms of this state or that. You're ignoring much of the ledger.  Interestingly, the more important side in the circumstances.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 17, 2018)




----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 17, 2018)

We only have what free movement of labour we have to service free movement of capital. Liberals dress it up as a progressive policy but it isn’t really, given the context.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

agricola said:


> Hard to see how that isn't a deliberate act; they should be at Kew (and indeed the pre-1960 passenger lists are).


I wonder what their justification was in throwing them away? 

If space was an issue could they not have been digitised, or is that expecting too much?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2018)

UK removed legal protection for Windrush immigrants in 2014


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> We only have what free movement of labour we have to service free movement of capital. Liberals dress it up as a progressive policy but it isn’t really, given the context.


In technical, Marxian, terms, EU-defined "freedom of movement" is as discussed here in this reference to Marx from butchersapron, and my reply: Urban v's the Commentariat.  It's about factor mobility and labour arbitrage.

Liberals being blind to one side of the ledger.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 17, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> You're still thinking in terms of this state or that. You're ignoring much of the ledger.  Interestingly, the more important side in the circumstances.


Ach, come on, you're just obfuscating. I'm asking a pretty straightforward question based in current reality. The fact is, there's a decision about how to treat national borders because nations are currently a real thing that exists. Speaking for myself, I am in favour of some level of border control because I think otherwise an unmanageable situation would arise, or at least a situation where the quality of life of lots of people in this country would be affected to an extent that I don't think I'd be willing to accept it in exchange for the benefits it might bring to people who currently have an even worse quality of life. I'm aware that this position results in a situation where the suffering of people elsewhere in the world is not alleviated when perhaps it could be. I'm aware that a consequence of maintaining borders is that desperate people drown in the med. I'm not going to shy away from that. Refusing to answer the question about what, pragmatically, should be done in the here and now does shy away from that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Refusing to answer the question about what, pragmatically, should be done in the here and now does shy away from that.


Should be done by whom, though?  I've answered what I think _we_ should do.

(Also, you're - deliberately or accidentally - confusing nation in your reply and state in what you quote).


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 17, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> In technical, Marxian, terms, EU-defined "freedom of movement" is as discussed here in this reference to Marx from butchersapron, and my reply: Urban v's the Commentariat.  It's about factor mobility and labour arbitrage.
> 
> Liberals being blind to one side of the ledger.



They’re good posts. Another positive for Capital is that it further aids the atomisation of the labour force and the smashing up of wc communities (by making the labour market more transient and thus people leaving/joining new areas in search of work).


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 17, 2018)

Home Office destroyed proof that could have spared Windrush generation from deportation

Hmm


----------



## teuchter (Apr 17, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Should be done by whom, though?  I've answered what I think _we_ should do.



Those who have the power to change what happens at the UK border when someone from another country arrives and wants to cross it.



danny la rouge said:


> (Also, you're - deliberately or accidentally - confusing nation in your reply and state in what you quote).



You can replace nation with state in my reply if you want. Both nation and state are real things, in the sense that their existence is felt by people. I'm guessing at what you really mean by talking about states and ledgers, because you're not being explicit in what you want to say. Yes I'm talking in terms of this state or that because as far as I'm concerned they are real things which affect what happens at borders, and what happens to people, including people chained to escorts on planes.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2018)

ruffneck23 said:


> Home Office destroyed proof that could have spared Windrush generation from deportation
> 
> Hmm


This was mentioned up-thread.  The Indy piece is incredibly shoddily written, though.  

"Thousands of landing cards – recording dates of arrival in the UK – were thrown away, despite staff warnings that it would be harder for Caribbean-born residents to establish their right to be in the UK.

The files *were discarded in October that year,* when the current prime minister was home secretary, a former Home Office employee revealed."

What year?  With what is "that" supposed to agree?  

May was Home Secy for 6 years, from 2010 to 2016.  The decision to discard the disembarkation cards was, according to the Guardian, taken in 2010.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Those who have the power to change what happens at the UK border when someone from another country arrives and wants to cross it.


Who is that? 

If you have a specific question you want to ask me, by all means do so.



> because you're not being explicit in what you want to say. Yes I'm talking in terms of this state or that because as far as I'm concerned they are real things which affect what happens at borders, and what happens to people, including people chained to escorts on planes.


I _am_ being explicit.  I'm talking explicitly about what capital does and what workers should do in response.  Solidarity.  Mutual aid.  Practical cooperation.  Including, where appropriate, physically preventing the types of scenes you describe.

I've even used economic terms, and provided links to what they mean.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I've heard similar stories from people who in the end have simply given up, and both left the country.



And that's exactly what the government wants to happen, of course - the demands for unfeasible amounts of paperwork aren't to combat fraud, they're because the government has made promises on reducing immigration that it can't really deliver on, so it is deliberately trying to make the process as difficult and discouraging as possible.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 17, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Who is that?



Let's say parliament. Would you like to see parliament pass the necessary legislation to remove all restrictions on who can enter the UK. There's my specific question.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 17, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I _am_ being explicit.  I'm talking explicitly about what capital does and what workers should do in response.  Solidarity.  Mutual aid.  Practical cooperation.  Including, where appropriate, physically preventing the types of scenes you describe.
> 
> I've even used economic terms, and provided links to what they mean.



You say I am ignoring the ledger. I am not clear exactly what you mean by the "ledger" in this context.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Let's say parliament. Would you like to see parliament pass the necessary legislation to remove all restrictions on who can enter the UK. There's my specific question.


Yes.  I'd also like to see it dissolve itself and dismantle capitalism.  It isn't going to do either, though. 

You probably know, I'm an anarchist communist, and my analysis of what parliaments do is that they are not there to serve the interests of the people, but to serve the interests of the capitalist classes.  The legislation they pass has what is known as "unintended consequences" in large degree because of that dynamic. (Aside from the other more human factors, like "fucking up"). To separate out this one variable in what a parliament may do (vary the degree of control over immigration from 0-100 and any point in between) from the economic conditions in which that parliament is operating is actually, once the context has been pointed out, disingenuous.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> We only have what free movement of labour we have to service free movement of capital. Liberals dress it up as a progressive policy but it isn’t really, given the context.



No immigrants please, we're Marxists.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> You say I am ignoring the ledger. I am not clear exactly what you mean by the "ledger" in this context.


One _side of_.  It's a metaphor.  You are acting as if capital and labour are the same interests.  They aren't.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> No immigrants please, we're Marxists.


With a British passport to boot so therefore not troubled by the idea/ability of being free to move around.


----------



## bimble (Apr 17, 2018)

Maybe the question Teucher needs to ask is ‘What if you, personally, had a magic wand and could if you chose make this one thing happen right now, all else remaining the same..’
Still don’t think you’ll get the answer you’re looking for. Which is a very uncomfortable No.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> What should we do in the meantime though. While we are "working hard" to answer the right questions rather than the wrong questions - what do we do? Open borders or not? It's a legitimate question.


It's a nonsense question. You're asking if, installed tomorrow as head of some fantasy government, I would unilaterally impose open borders while everything else remains unchanged? Well... I can't imagine a situation where such a government would come about. So what's the point of posing such a question?


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

Oh i see Danny has kindly answered the question. Ta mate.


----------



## patman post (Apr 17, 2018)

Looks like “children of Windrush” are now being reassured they’re safe from deportation and benefit stoppages. Whether they get back pay and compensation for lost earnings remains to be seen (not too hopeful). 
All this seems strange when child killers and others with no British connections cannot be deported after serving sentences for crimes because that would deprive them of a family life with relatives who moved here under EU rules...
Philip Lawrence killer 'cannot be deported'


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2018)

That article is 11 years old.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Maybe the question Teucher needs to ask is ‘What if you, personally, had a magic wand and could if you chose make this one thing happen right now, all else remaining the same..’
> Still don’t think you’ll get the answer you’re looking for. Which is a very uncomfortable No.


Which is precisely why the answer you get from nonsense questions doesn't tell you anything useful.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 17, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


>




Yes, thats funny to a certain extent. But Britain doesn't have 'imaginary geo political borders'. It has very real and very wet borders which can't be expanded. Which is why we need to control how many people cross them.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you don't have to believe in open borders to realise this is an utterly shabby way to treat people. I've got pretty conservative views on migration. I don't think we had much choice but to change the immigration rules in 1971 and we need to change them again now. That doesn't mean we don't have a duty to treat everyone here with total respect and consideration.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> No immigrants please, we're Marxists.



I’m not anti-immigrant so please don’t intimate that I am. Fact remains that immigration generally involves people uprooting and leaving their communities in search of work elsewhere. Surely the more progressive position would be for investment to happen to ensure people could attain their needs and desires without separating them from their friends and families (but to live elsewhere also if they so choose)?
That economic forced emigration is dressed up as something that’s ‘good’ by the left has always perplexed me tbh.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 17, 2018)

Tropi said:


> The children of Windrush: 'I’m here legally, but they’re asking me to prove I’m British'
> This is so appalling!



Yes, it is. However, from today's news, it is being remedied ASAP.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2018)

patman post said:


> Looks like “children of Windrush” are now being reassured they’re safe from deportation and benefit stoppages. Whether they get back pay and compensation for lost earnings remains to be seen (not too hopeful).
> All this seems strange when child killers and others with no British connections cannot be deported after serving sentences for crimes because that would deprive them of a family life with relatives who moved here under EU rules...
> Philip Lawrence killer 'cannot be deported'



Go away and take your decade old article and grudge with you.


----------



## mx wcfc (Apr 17, 2018)

.  (deleted due to negative comments - sorry, it's a bit late and I probably didn't think it through)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2018)

It's the Mexican themed joke, innocent/funny or not, someone having pushed a woman off of a cliff joke again? Tequila? 

If you don't think it's funny why post it?


----------



## mx wcfc (Apr 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> It's the Mexican themed joke, innocent/funny or not, someone having pushed a woman off of a cliff joke again? Tequila?
> 
> If you don't think it's funny why post it?


I honestly didn't think anyone would be offended by that copy post that is doing the rounds on FB.  I thought it was taking the piss out of May. I will delete.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> It's the Mexican themed joke, innocent/funny or not, someone having pushed a woman off of a cliff joke again? Tequila?
> 
> If you don't think it's funny why post it?



It is funny.


----------



## mx wcfc (Apr 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> It's the Mexican themed joke, innocent/funny or not, someone having pushed a woman off of a cliff joke again? Tequila?
> 
> If you don't think it's funny why post it?


I thought it was a funny meme.  It is clearly not funny for the people on the receiving end of this awful series of events.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2018)

mx wcfc said:


> I thought it was a funny meme.  It is clearly not funny for the people on the receiving end of this awful series of events.



It's funny because of the depiction of the casual callousness of the people who quite deliberately did this.
I don't think many people think of the Tories' "hostile environment" gambit as anything other than utterly disgusting, and I think the joke underlines this.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2018)

8ball said:


> It is funny.



To you.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> To you.



I think the depiction of these execrable shitwads as a bunch of callous unthinking buffoons is exactly how their people don't want to see them portrayed.
I'm a bit wary of the idea that satire should tread lightly.  Especially in these times.

edit:  the only issue I have with it is that it lets Amber Rudd off a bit lightly


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think the depiction of these execrable shitwads as a bunch of callous unthinking buffoons is exactly how their people don't want to see them portrayed.
> I'm a bit wary of the idea that satire should tread lightly.  Especially in these times.



So what. I feel differently to you today...maybe other days too. 

I get the joke. It was and has continued to be made for many years already as I showed with the Mexican/tequila reference above.

Jokes wear thin IME, satirical or not.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> So what. I feel differently to you today...maybe other days too.
> 
> I get the joke. It was and has continued to be made for many years already as I showed with the Mexican/tequila reference above.
> 
> Jokes wear thin IME, satirical or not.



Fair enough, I get that.

I don't see it as trivialising anything myself, I think it makes the point very well about what these people are about, and their hamfisted attempt to make political gains by pandering to the worst elements of our media without a thought to the consequences for real people.

Tbf this is the only joke I've seen on the matter, and I might be missing other possible readings of things.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 17, 2018)

May 'had plan for illegal migrant pupils'

a few years old now & not massively relevant to windrush, but shows how the utterly fucking shitty Mayhem thinks. It even makes Nicky Morgan seem half human.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2018)

Makes me despair about what to even try to do about this.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 18, 2018)

Spike Milligan

"I never see myself as Irish, but I am. My father and mother were both Irish and had Irish passports. I had a British passport, but when I went to get it renewed, and said my father was born in Ireland before 1900, they said I couldn't have a British passport - some bloody law.

So I said, fuck you. I went to the Irish Embassy and I said: "My name's Spike Milligan, can I have a passport?" And they said, "Oh yes! We're short of people."


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 18, 2018)

steeplejack said:


> Yeah, I read that, it's the origins of her choking mania for deporting people / hostile environments etc that I'm trying to understand.
> 
> She makes Michael Howard look kind by comparison.


My guess:when times are hard, and they feel that they are up against it, it is the default reaction of Tory politicians to play to the forriner hater gallery.
They practically can't 
help themselves - it's hardwired


----------



## Athos (Apr 18, 2018)

It's not a reference to the tequila joke. But to a very old and very famous joke: 'my wife's gone to the West Indies', 'Jamaica?', 'no, she went of her own accord.'  It appeared in print as far back as 1914 (The Railroad Telegrapher), was used by PG Wodehouse in the '40s (Uncle Dynamite), appeared in film in the 50's (Colditz), was referenced in a Led Zep song (D'yer Mak'er), and even heard in the Cliff Richard film 'The Young Ones'.  It spawned a raft of puns with the same format e.g. Indonesia/Jakarta?/no, under her own steam.

The original is a pun, about which it's hard to see how anyone could take offence. It provides the structure for this latest version. There, the joke isn't the pun (somewhat hackneyed after more than 100 years); we're invited to laugh at something else. In terms of offensives, the question is whether the butt of the joke is the deportations, or Tory callousness.  To me, it's clearly the latter.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 18, 2018)

Athos said:


> To me, it's clearly the latter


Indeed. That's why it works. The joke is that the pun has gone and is replaced by a straight-faced May saying "yes".


----------



## Athos (Apr 18, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed. That's why it works. The joke is that the pun has gone and is replaced by a straight-faced May saying "yes".



Yes, quite obviously (to anyone not determined to manufacture outrage, or take offence where none is offered).


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 18, 2018)

It's now been removed from this thread, but for those who didn't see it, it's also on the bandwidth thread: https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...andwidthz-pt-5.261392/page-3754#post-15523998

(The link posted on this thread purported to be by the maker of the the meme, and contained a link to a petition. I didn't click on the petition because I don't have Facebook and don't really do petitions, but the vibe was that the person involved disapproved of the situation. Supporting the notion that the joke was against May and her callous disregard for humanity).


----------



## teqniq (Apr 18, 2018)

this is just disgusting


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 18, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> It's now been removed from this thread, but for those who didn't see it, it's also on the bandwidth thread: https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...andwidthz-pt-5.261392/page-3754#post-15523998
> 
> (The link posted on this thread purported to be by the maker of the the meme, and contained a link to a petition. I didn't click on the petition because I don't have Facebook and don't really do petitions, but the vibe was that the person involved disapproved of the situation. Supporting the notion that the joke was against May and her callous disregard for humanity).



The link to the petition is here if anyone needs it:

Petition: Amnesty for anyone who was a minor that arrived In Britain between 1948 to 1971


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 18, 2018)

teqniq said:


> this is just disgusting
> 
> View attachment 133074


This is precisely the Orwellian nightmare you'd expect from a bureaucratic policy based on quotas.


----------



## andysays (Apr 18, 2018)

Urban's self-appointed arbiter of humour and offensiveness in satire has made a twat of herself by pontificating about something she clearly doesn't understand. 

Jamaica?

No, she did it all by herself, just like she's done in the past...


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2018)

Christ, that's stretching.

Have you considered a career as a radio 4 comedy writer?


----------



## teqniq (Apr 18, 2018)




----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 18, 2018)

Yossarian said:


> And that's exactly what the government wants to happen, of course - the demands for unfeasible amounts of paperwork aren't to combat fraud, they're because the government has made promises on reducing immigration that it can't really deliver on, so it is deliberately trying to make the process as difficult and discouraging as possible.


Which unfortunately brings us back to bloomin Brexit.  The sub 100,000 a year could have been hit, could still be hit, but only by massively reducing EU net migration. It's worth pointing out for those who are younger or have short memories that in the 80s and much of the 90s net migration was pretty much zero and in some years negative. 

You can plot a pretty good correlation between rising EU migration and how shabbily non EU migrants are treated by the government.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 18, 2018)

Yossarian said:


> The link to the petition is here if anyone needs it:
> 
> Petition: Amnesty for anyone who was a minor that arrived In Britain between 1948 to 1971


I signed it a couple of days ago, but the only issue I have is with the word 'amnesty'. An amnesty implies you've done wrong and we are going to turn a blind eye. These people have done nothing wrong.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2018)

andysays said:


> Urban's self-appointed arbiter of humour and offensiveness in satire has made a twat of herself by pontificating about something she clearly doesn't understand.
> 
> Jamaica?
> 
> No, she did it all by herself, just like she's done in the past...



If only I were as achingly cool, popular, intelligent, charismatic, interesting, fun loving and humble as you.

What we need is a way of me getting you to check everything I think and feel before I post it.

You are guru-like afterall. Let's make it official.

We can have t-shirts. A simple .design will do. Understated, like you.

They will read 'because andysays'.

Not everyone will agree but that's okay you can just call them a twat and condescendingly accuse them of not understanding.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 18, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes, it is. However, from today's news, it is being remedied ASAP.



Only because the media got hold of the story.  If the media fuss hadn't happened, do you think the government would have done diddly squat?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 18, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Only because the media got hold of the story.  If the media fuss hadn't happened, do you think the government would have done diddly squat?



Diddly squat would have been an improvement. This was deliberate tory policy, not something they allowed to happen through sheer negligence.


----------



## bimble (Apr 18, 2018)

Deliberate policy yes, inevitable consequence of those targets they announced years ago and probably based on the fact that consistently for decades people in this country have said they want fewer immigrants and vote for the politicians who promise this. UK Public Opinion toward Immigration: Overall Attitudes and Level of Concern - Migration Observatory


----------



## Athos (Apr 18, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Not everyone will agree but that's okay you can just call them a twat and condescendingly accuse them of not understanding.



Umm... you didn't understand. You wrongly thought it was a reference to a different joke. 

You know it's ok just to say you were wrong, sometimes?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2018)

Athos said:


> Umm... you didn't understand. You wrongly thought it was a reference to a different joke.
> 
> You know it's ok just to say you were wrong, sometimes?



FFs you are a relentless, sneering twit. You know I want no engagement at all with you but you keep at it. You then get all hurt when i bite back at you and accuse me of holding a creepy grudge, when in fact that's your MO. Non fucking stop, nitpicking, up your own arse sneering, nastily and purposely misrepresenting what i post to have a dig, gather yourself a few pointless likes and convince yourself of popularity.

I am not wrong. It uses the same function (word play/dead pan) as the joke I referred to, that's what i meant. I don't find that kind of humour funny. It's the equivalent to 1970's canned laughter stuff to me. There was no outrage, I did understand, it's not sophisticated and I don't give a rat's arse what you think.

You probably feel all smug now that you've finally annoyed me enough to actually respond to you again. Enjoy.

Now off you fuck.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 18, 2018)

Wow, Daily Mail have gone front page again with this. This time focusing on the shredded documents. Of course the Daily Mail have been critical of the government before, but it really looks like they are putting the boot in.


----------



## Athos (Apr 18, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> FFs you are a relentless, sneering twit. You know I want no engagement at all with you by you keep at it. You then get all hurt when i bite back at you and accuse me of holding a creepy grudge, when in fact that's your MO. None fucking stop, nitpicking, up your own arse sneering, nastily and purposely misrepresenting what i post to have a dig, gather yourself a few pointless likes and convince yourself of popularity.
> 
> I am not wrong. It uses the same function (word play/dead pan) as the joke I referred to, that's what i meant. I don't find that kind of humour funny. It's the equivalent to 1970's canned laughter stuff to me. There was no outrage, I did understand, it's not sophisticated and I don't give a rat's arse what you think.
> 
> ...



Lol.  If it helps you to believe that because your ego's so fragile that you can't concede that you wrongly thought it was a reference to the tequila joke, when it was actually a reference to something else, then be my guest. I pity you.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 18, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Only because the media got hold of the story.  If the media fuss hadn't happened, do you think the government would have done diddly squat?



No, I don't, which is utterly disgraceful.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 18, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes.  I'd also like to see it dissolve itself and dismantle capitalism.  It isn't going to do either, though.
> 
> You probably know, I'm an anarchist communist, and my analysis of what parliaments do is that they are not there to serve the interests of the people, but to serve the interests of the capitalist classes.  The legislation they pass has what is known as "unintended consequences" in large degree because of that dynamic. (Aside from the other more human factors, like "fucking up"). To separate out this one variable in what a parliament may do (vary the degree of control over immigration from 0-100 and any point in between) from the economic conditions in which that parliament is operating is actually, once the context has been pointed out, disingenuous.



It's impossible to discuss or think about just about anything without separating variables out, to some extent artificially. Asking someone's opinion on immigration policy does not mean that I ignore the context in which that policy operates. It's not disingenuous. I don't see the issue with you answering the question in the context of your analysis of what parliaments do. That's how anyone thoughtful would answer the question. 

It's also the reality of how policy decisions tend to be made. Governments try to adjust variables. Parliament may vote on what amounts to a decision about how a certain variable is adjusted. Legislation tries to define variables. Of course, in an ideal world, all those decisions are made whilst considering the context of the decision as fully as possible, rather than seeing those adjustments as self-contained things.

So, it's not disingenuous to ask a question about degree of control of immigration. It's a question that is continually being asked and acted on. The reality of the way things work is that quotas are set and changed. I get it that you say that the problem can only be solved properly by much more wholesale changes - in your case the overthrow of the state and a fundamentally different way of organising society. Fine. The argument about whether that's plausibly ever going to happen is another one - but even if we agree that that's what we're going to work towards, the question about what to do about immigration policy in the meantime remains. That was my original question to those who say that the problem must be solved by more fundamental changes than trying to adjust quotas - what do we do in the real-world meantime? I was originally responding to the suggestion that it somehow isn't a legitimate question, or that maybe even to ask the question is somehow racist.

I think you've now said that yes, in the context of the current system, and assuming that for now we have to continue with our parliament that serves the interests of the capitalist classes, that assuming all that, you'd like all quotas to be removed and for us to have a completely open immigration policy. You've also said you don't think it'll ever do that. I agree, I don't think it'll ever do that. Maybe we'd each give different reasons for why we don't think it'll ever do that, but you having stated that at least in the abstract you'd like to see parliament open all borders, can I therefore assume that your general preference is for more open rather than less open borders? And if we can establish that, is there any chance that we can talk about what the consequences would be, of somewhat more open borders, whilst still assuming that we're discussing the time period when our sub-optimal parliament system is in operation. Whatever the duration of that time period is, before the revolution comes to pass.

Lots of discussions on here effectively just come to a dead end, because people dodge talking about real world consequences of theoretical preferences, by saying that it's not worth talking about, because it's the "wrong question". It's the wrong question because it assumes a world where much more radical changes can't immediately come about so as to solve the problem by other more satisfactory means. But as far as I'm concerned that's the world we live in.

The way I see it, it's easy to state a preference for open borders.

It's easy (and patronising) to dismiss questions about consequences of such a policy as naive or disingenuous or simply "the wrong question" based on the assumption the questioner simply hasn't considered or thought about more radical changes.

It's very difficult to make and defend suggestions for what can plausibly be done through the mechanisms we currently have available to us to try and find a less bad solution than we currently have.

Yes, people on an individual basis can do things like making a fuss if they see someone on a plane being deported. And maybe if enough people do that there will be bad press and government will be slightly less inclined to push for deportation in certain cases. In the end that's still just adjusting a variable. A bit more or a bit less deportation.


----------



## agricola (Apr 18, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Only because the media got hold of the story.  If the media fuss hadn't happened, do you think the government would have done diddly squat?



Perhaps _"get hold"_ is a bit much to describe what went on.  "_Be given the story with a snappy two-word summary for headline purposes_" would be better, at least for those of them who aren't Amelia Gentleman.


----------



## agricola (Apr 18, 2018)

Also its interesting to see that the PM probably told a fib once (over Albert Thompson's medical costs, which was news to him) and may have told a second one (about the decision to destroy the Windrush landing cards taking place under Labour rather than when she was HS, which contradicts a Border Force statement put out last night and in the post-PMQs media briefing today) at PMQs.  

Clearly this has them rattled.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 18, 2018)

teuchter said:


> what do we do in the real-world meantime?


Thank you for your long and detailed answer. 

But the answer to what I assume is your core question, what do we do in the real-world in the meantime, is: working class solidarity. E.g. If your neighbour is being deported, block the doorway with numbers.  

Or, look at the work of the Wobblies 100 years ago. Where there was suspicion of immigrant labour undercutting or scabbing, they'd lay on social receptions for immigrants, find beds for them with families, help them with bureaucracy, that sort of thing. That way the immigrants would feel welcome, feel a connection with "local" labour, and therefore would be less likely to scab. In return "local" labour would learn the immigrants are people with whom they have more in common than not, that they're decent people who wouldn't scab, and so on. That together we can unite against the bosses.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2018)

The two deceptions (I guess they were probably carefully worded so they can't be considered bare-faced lies, but their effect was the same) were deployed purely to get a 'win' at PMQs, hence the clearly pre-prepared 'clarification' delivered immediately after. 

The press seem to have eaten it, which is all the tories are interested in.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 18, 2018)

killer b said:


> The two deceptions (I guess they were probably carefully worded so they can't be considered bare-faced lies, but their effect was the same) were deployed purely to get a 'win' at PMQs, hence the clearly pre-prepared 'clarification' delivered immediately after.
> 
> The press seem to have eaten it, which is all the tories are interested in.



Typical Tory trick, trying to make a political gain while families are distraught and fearful of a future none of them would have anticipated.
PMQs should be disposed of.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2018)

> I was forced on to a charter flight in the middle of the night, denied all appeal rights, and sent to a country I did not know.’
> 
> I was 27 when I was deported from the UK to Jamaica, so I am not a Windrush migrant – but my great grandparents were. They moved to the UK in the early 1950s. Over time, they invited their children over, and most of my family have always lived in England.



‘Act Jamaican,’ they said when they deported me. But I’m British | Michelle Blake


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2018)

agricola said:


> Also its interesting to see that the PM probably told a fib once (over Albert Thompson's medical costs, which was news to him) and may have told a second one (about the decision to destroy the Windrush landing cards taking place under Labour rather than when she was HS, which contradicts a Border Force statement put out last night and in the post-PMQs media briefing today) at PMQs.
> 
> Clearly this has them rattled.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2018)




----------



## teuchter (Apr 18, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Thank you for your long and detailed answer.
> 
> But the answer to what I assume is your core question, what do we do in the real-world in the meantime, is: working class solidarity. E.g. If your neighbour is being deported, block the doorway with numbers.
> 
> Or, look at the work of the Wobblies 100 years ago. Where there was suspicion of immigrant labour undercutting or scabbing, they'd lay on social receptions for immigrants, find beds for them with families, help them with bureaucracy, that sort of thing. That way the immigrants would feel welcome, feel a connection with "local" labour, and therefore would be less likely to scab. In return "local" labour would learn the immigrants are people with whom they have more in common than not, that they're decent people who wouldn't scab, and so on. That together we can unite against the bosses.



My question was really what we do about borders in the meantime - not how we should immigrants once they are here.

Or maybe your proposal is that borders are made significantly more open, and that potential difficulties arising from a large inflow of immigrants can be dealt with by adopting the kind of approaches you describe above. It doesn't sound realistic to me, but fair enough.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 18, 2018)

teuchter said:


> My question was really what we do about borders in the meantime - not how we should immigrants once they are here.
> 
> Or maybe your proposal is that borders are made significantly more open, and that potential difficulties arising from a large inflow of immigrants can be dealt with by adopting the kind of approaches you describe above. It doesn't sound realistic to me, but fair enough.


No. My proposal is that governments stop being cunts. Given the unrealistic nature of that project my back up plan is working class solidarity.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 18, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> No. My proposal is that governments stop being cunts. Given the unrealistic nature of that project my back up plan is working class solidarity.



So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open.

I could do a confused smiley but I think basically you don't want to engage in a conversation about open borders and the real world consequences under our current setup. That's fair enough, you shouldn't be obliged to, but here we are with another u75 dead end discussion.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Apr 18, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> ‘Act Jamaican,’ they said when they deported me. But I’m British | Michelle Blake



That's really fucking sad


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 18, 2018)

teuchter said:


> So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open.
> 
> I could do a confused smiley but I think basically you don't want to engage in a conversation about open borders and the real world consequences under our current setup. That's fair enough, you shouldn't be obliged to, but here we are with another u75 dead end discussion.


I don't think there's a parliamentary road to socialism. I think parliaments doing things should be one of the things that is stopped. For that reason, I tend not to vote. I don't support parties. And I focus my own political efforts on non parliamentary activities. My definition of "real world" politics is practical action here and now in our own communities. 

No idea where you get this from: "So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open" because it isn't what I said.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 18, 2018)

Anyway, children of Windrush immigrants are people who look to me just like what everyone else would call a British Citizen. Most likely they thought that themselves. So this is actually about when is a citizen not a citizen.


----------



## agricola (Apr 18, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Anyway, children of Windrush immigrants are people who look to me just like what everyone else would call a British Citizen. Most likely they thought that themselves. So this is actually about when is a citizen not a citizen.



When does a citizen stop being a citizen, more like.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 18, 2018)

agricola said:


> When does a citizen stop being a citizen, more like.


Indeed.


----------



## agricola (Apr 18, 2018)

If anyone is bored, the Hansard record of the debates around the Immigration Act 2014 makes humorous reading; almost all of the problems that the Windrush scandal have exposed were raised at the time, often by what is now the Labour front bench:



> *Ms Abbott* I accept the Home Secretary’s wish to clean up the system and discourage people from “playing” it—I deal with thousands of immigration cases every month—but has she given no thought to the effect that her measures that are designed to crack down on illegal immigrants could have on people who are British nationals, but appear as if they might be immigrants?
> 
> *Mrs May:* We have given a great deal of thought to the way in which our measures will operate. The changes that we propose will strengthen our ability to deal with those who are here illegally. We are, for example, strengthening our ability to enforce penalties for those who employ illegal workers. The system enabling employers to determine whether the workers whom they employ are here legally or not is in place, is well known and is running properly, and the same will apply in the other areas that we are discussing.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Apr 18, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Anyway, children of Windrush immigrants are people who look to me just like what everyone else would call a British Citizen. Most likely they thought that themselves. So this is actually about when is a citizen not a citizen.


To be clear - on this issue, I think the way these children of Windrush immigrants have been treated is indefensible. Anyone who comes to this country as a child and who grows up here should be considered a citizen, regardless of their parents' status.


----------



## patman post (Apr 18, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> No. My proposal is that governments stop being cunts. Given the unrealistic nature of that project my back up plan is working class solidarity.


Shame all the fuss about mismanagement of the Windrush Childrens’ Britishness came about during a significant anniversary of Enoch’s Rivers of Blood speech — a time when the working class in the form of builders, dockers, Smithfield workers, etc, marched in support of Powell. Of course, these working class dummies were all manipulated by Right Wing agitators...


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 18, 2018)

patman post said:


> Shame all the fuss about mismanagement of the Windrush Childrens’ Britishness came about during a significant anniversary of Enoch’s Rivers of Blood speech — a time when the working class in the form of builders, dockers, Smithfield workers, etc, marched in support of Powell. Of course, these working class dummies were all manipulated by Right Wing agitators...


I don't know you, but you seem "entertaining".

If you think I'm saying the working class is a monothought bloc of "political correctness", then you've not read my posts.  Or you've added other stuff in that isn't there.  I quite clearly explained the point that the practice of solidarity is transformative.  

As for "some working class people are racist".  Indeed.  And what's your point?  But if you're claiming that the working class as a whole is or was racist, then you're talking nonsense.  Some is not all.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The insaneness of unmitigated free movement between European countries which instigated Brexit etc shouldn’t have been somehow muddled with the status of those who plugged labour shortages decades ago and have been here for years. That the govt didn’t have the foresight to see this coming from their policies further illustrates their ineptness to govern.



Catching up on this thread and can't let this pass.

I live in Brixton. One of my Afro Carribbean friends said the way people were complaining about Poles etc was the same complaints as directed at his father's generation when they came here postwar.

As my Afro Carribbean friend said immigration has been an issue in this country for years. The target group changes over time.

So in agreement with my Afro Carribbean friend you are wrong.

There are parallels. People from Commonwealth country had free movement until 71. The change like a lot of what instigated Brexit was down to anti immigration sentiment.

I was chatting to my partner this evening, she is one of those Europeans who came here due to "insane" free movement, about this issue. Hardly makes her feel confident about her status here.

This country has a long history of giving immigrants a hard time. Nothing to be proud of.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 18, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Catching up on this thread and can't let this pass.
> 
> I live in Brixton. One of my Afro Carribbean friends said the way people were complaining about Poles etc was the same complaints as directed at his father's generation when they came here postwar.
> 
> ...



Not sure how that counters what I was saying but cheers for the effort.


----------



## GarveyLives (Apr 18, 2018)

Mother of Windrush citizen blames passport battle for son's death as Home Office deals with 113 cases







​


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2018)

teuchter said:


> It's impossible to discuss or think about just about anything without separating variables out, to some extent artificially. Asking someone's opinion on immigration policy does not mean that I ignore the context in which that policy operates. It's not disingenuous. I don't see the issue with you answering the question in the context of your analysis of what parliaments do. That's how anyone thoughtful would answer the question.
> 
> It's also the reality of how policy decisions tend to be made. Governments try to adjust variables. Parliament may vote on what amounts to a decision about how a certain variable is adjusted. Legislation tries to define variables. Of course, in an ideal world, all those decisions are made whilst considering the context of the decision as fully as possible, rather than seeing those adjustments as self-contained things.
> 
> ...



I'm reading this and wonder do we both live in Brixton area?

Before you ask I'm for open borders. I don't think it would lead to bad consequences for this country. It didn't in Brixton. Most of Afro Carribbean community here were descended from those who came during the "uncontrolled" pre 1971 years.

This country really never has had mass migration to deal with. Take the Syrian conflict. Countries like Lebanon and Turkey have taken in a large number of refugees suddenly. Compared to what those countries have dealt with the immigration debate here is trivial in reality.

Imo a lot of government policy on immigration/ asylum/ right to stay for partners isn't driven by actual concrete consequences. It's driven by pandering to anti immigrant / racist views

And yes I am emotional about this issue. As I live in Brixton this is a hot topic. And people I know do relate it to wider issues around his this country treats immigrants / those descended from them.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2018)

GarveyLives said:


> Mother of Windrush citizen blames passport battle for son's death as Home Office deals with 113 cases
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes Garvey I'm aware of this.

But what is your opinion? Posting up links is ok once in a while but you aren't engaging with the thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> The response of the state is the response of local capital.
> 
> The response of the working class must be working class solidarity. And that's the side that's missed in this narrative. But don't mistake solidarity for an order from above to be generous. Solidarity is a two way bond. It is horizontal. It is not a top down command.
> 
> ...



I'd agree with your sentiment.

In Brixton there is an example of this.

In the Ritzy cinema dispute the cinema workers are trying to get the living wage. I know that the Ritzy workforce are a diverse bunch. Including Poles. The Ritzy dispute is an example of solidarity across people from very different backgrounds.

Immigrants often are scapegoats for poor wages and conditions. The Ritzy dispute shows there is another way to fight this. Not bring in more immigration controls but for workers from different backgrounds to see what they have in common.


----------



## GarveyLives (Apr 18, 2018)

> But what is your opinion? Posting up links is ok once in a while but you aren't engaging with the thread.



I feel certain that there are plenty of others better placed to 'engage' with the facts:



​


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 19, 2018)

agricola said:


> If anyone is bored, the Hansard record of the debates around the Immigration Act 2014 makes humorous reading; almost all of the problems that the Windrush scandal have exposed were raised at the time, often by what is now the Labour front bench:



BBC Radio 4 - Unreliable Evidence, Asylum

This radio program is relevant to that quote. Lawyers discussing helping there clients in immigration cases. I've only caught a third of program.

Program shows how tough already are laws here compared to other countries. This was no accident.


----------



## agricola (Apr 19, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> BBC Radio 4 - Unreliable Evidence, Asylum
> 
> This radio program is relevant to that quote. Lawyers discussing helping there clients in immigration cases. I've only caught a third of program.
> 
> Program shows how tough already are laws here compared to other countries. This was no accident.



"Tough" laws would be an improvement on this shambles.  Worked here all your life?  _Sod off_.  Have money to fight us?  _By all means hang around, in fact if you've got that much money why not take advantage of our burgeoning financial sector and property market._


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Apr 19, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Kenan Malik recently:
> 
> "In demonising a figure such as Hopkins, we often give a free pass to politicians and institutions that are far more influential in promoting reactionary ideas, both in policy and in shaping public opinion.
> 
> ...


Yes!!! The thing I love about that guy is his ability to translate your gut feelings and shite into an extremely robust argument. I hope next time he comes to the far north he takes the ferry to Orkney


----------



## teqniq (Apr 19, 2018)

Mother of Windrush citizen blames passport problems for his death


----------



## teuchter (Apr 19, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> No idea where you get this from: "So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open" because it isn't what I said.



I got it from here:



teuchter said:


> Let's say parliament. Would you like to see parliament pass the necessary legislation to remove all restrictions on who can enter the UK. There's my specific question.





danny la rouge said:


> *Yes.*  I'd also like to see it dissolve itself and dismantle capitalism.  It isn't going to do either, though.




and here:



teuchter said:


> Or maybe your proposal is that borders are made significantly more open, and that potential difficulties arising from a large inflow of immigrants can be dealt with by adopting the kind of approaches you describe above.





danny la rouge said:


> *No.* My proposal is that governments stop being cunts. Given the unrealistic nature of that project my back up plan is working class solidarity.



(my bold)


----------



## teqniq (Apr 19, 2018)

What a fucking clown. He seems to mistakenly believe this in some way absolves her. Timothy is a columnist for the torygraph and the scum.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 19, 2018)

May is a dull uninspired mechanist. there is zero chance. ZERO . that she would have allowed some kind of Laissez-faire policy development to occur under her watch.

also a fucking nasty evasive liar


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2018)

This twitter thread is slamming - click through and read the lot.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2018)

Been wondering on the exact figures...


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 19, 2018)

I do wonder if, in hindsight (and hindsight is always 20-20 of course), we would have been better going with nu Labs ID card scheme. If people had been told in 2010 " in 3 years everyone will need an ID card, start planning now", these problems would have come up sooner.

Instead we suddenly went *BOOM* straight in to hostile environment with no preparation time at all.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2018)

how about just not having the hostile environment. that would have been a much better option.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> how about just not having the hostile environment. that would have been a much better option.


But of course that brings us back full circle to open borders yes/no.

If you are going to have immigration laws, and the vast majority of people, including most BME people, say we do, then we really need to enforce them.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2018)

sure, it's neofascism or open borders. nothing inbetween.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> sure, it's neofascism or open borders. nothing inbetween.


But we've got the 'neofascist' element of ID cards in that a British passport has become a de facto requirement to work, claim benefits, rent property or access healthcare. 

We've got the database element of the ID card scheme too, in everything but name. 

Having both those without the actual ID cards themselves is arguably the worst of all worlds?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I got it from here:
> 
> and here:
> 
> (my bold)


You asked me a hypothetical, to which I answered yes with qualifications.  You then set out something that wasn't my position, saying "maybe your proposal is", to which I said no it isn't.  

You are now claiming that those two answers add up to a third proposition, "So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open".  They do not.

There's really no point in continuing to discuss this with you if you are going to so openly misrepresent my position.  This thread doesn't deserve it.

But one final time: I do not see a parliamentary road to socialism.  I do not think parliaments represent the interests of the people, but the interests of the ruling class.  I therefore do not have a preferred program for anything (not just borders and immigration) that involves acts of parliament.  

Would I like open borders?  - Yes.  Do I think they can be implemented unilaterally by a neoliberal government?  - I wouldn't trust them to do so with concomitant conditions that would benefit either immigrants or "indigenous" populations.  Can I imagine a Europe of social democracies which could successfully multilaterally provide open borders both internally and externally?  - Yes. Would that be better than what we have now? - Yes, definitely.  Is that round the corner?  - No.

Seriously.  We could wait several lifetimes for parliaments to give us what we want.  Sign petitions.  Hope for capitalism to find a nicer side.  Or we can respond to what we're dealt in a way that builds solidarity, mutual aid and community self management principles.  

So rather than create a wish list of what parliament might do (about anything), I'd prefer a more pragmatic, community-centred, direct action approach.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 19, 2018)

teqniq said:


> What a fucking clown. He seems to mistakenly believe this in some way absolves her. Timothy is a columnist for the torygraph and the scum.
> 
> View attachment 133171



I missed the bit about her firing the underling responsible when she got back from Skeggy


----------



## teuchter (Apr 19, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> You asked me a hypothetical, to which I answered yes with qualifications.  You then set out something that wasn't my position, saying "maybe your proposal is", to which I said no it isn't.
> 
> You are now claiming that those two answers add up to a third proposition, "So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open".  They do not.



Tell me which part of that proposition is false, if you like.



danny la rouge said:


> So rather than create a wish list of what parliament might do (about anything), I'd prefer a more pragmatic, community-centred, direct action approach.



Sure, I get that. What you call a pragmatic approach has nothing to say about what should happen at the UK borders, though, as far as I can work out. Like I say, fair enough. But my original question was specifically about what should happen at the UK's borders. That's the question that you initially responded to, and which started this exchange. If you don't want to engage with it then that's fine, but instead of simply saying that, you seem to be giving me oblique and/or seemingly contradictory answers and then saying I am misrepresenting you, and calling my questions disingenuous rather than simply questions you're not interested in answering.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 19, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Tell me which part of that proposition is false, if you like.


i think danny la rouge is saying all of it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Tell me which part of that proposition is false, if you like.


The second part of "So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open" is a complete misrepresentation of anything I've said.  The first part is an inaccurate rewording of something I gave a qualified answer to.



> what should happen at the UK borders, though, as far as I can work out. Like I say, fair enough. But my original question was specifically about what should happen at the UK's borders.


Well, no it wasn't.  You may think it was, but it's not exactly what you said.  And you may think that's nitpicky, but it isn't.  It's important to be precise about who is doing the doing, what doings are open to whom, where the various doings would take place,  how effective any of the doings might be, over whom I have influence, and so on. 

This exchange reminds me of the YouGov surveys I do (I thought I'd get more politics than I do).  "How likely are you to recommend product x to a friend?" "Certain not to".  "You say you would recommend friends avoid product x.  Why is that?"  "No, I didn't say that.  But in answer to the second part, I wouldn't recommend product x to a friend because I don't have those sorts of conversations with friends.  And if anyone attempted to have those sorts of conversations with me I'd make it clear we were not friends".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I'd agree with your sentiment.
> 
> In Brixton there is an example of this.
> 
> ...


Well said, and a good example. Immigrants don't drive down wages. Employers do. And the conditions that allow them to do it include such things as fracturing worker solidarity by blaming immigrants for driving down wages.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 19, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> May is a dull uninspired mechanist. there is zero chance. ZERO . that she would have allowed some kind of Laissez-faire policy development to occur under her watch.
> 
> also a fucking nasty evasive liar



Irrelevant who made the call, it was her department and her responsibility.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 19, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well said, and a good example. Immigrants don't drive down wages. Employers do. And the conditions that allow them to do it include such things as fracturing worker solidarity by blaming immigrants for driving down wages.


I don't blame immigrants for driving down wages. I blame immigration policy. Do people understand the difference?


----------



## andysays (Apr 19, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I don't blame immigrants for driving down wages. I blame immigration policy. Do people understand the difference?



So what you're effectively saying is that you want the state to change policy to prevent the immigrants from coming here.

I'm not sure that the distinction between blaming the policy and blaming the immigrants is as real as you and others are making out, TBH


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 19, 2018)

andysays said:


> So what you're effectively saying is that you want the state to change policy to prevent the immigrants from coming here.


Basically, yes.


----------



## andysays (Apr 19, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Basically, yes.



I'm sure potential and existing immigrants will be hugely consoled by the knowledge that you don't _blame_ them, you just want them to be prevented from being here...


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 19, 2018)

andysays said:


> I'm sure potential and existing immigrants will be hugely consoled by the knowledge that you don't _blame_ them, you just want them to be prevented from being here...


Potential immigrants ,yes. As I've said before existing immigrants should be allowed to stay in the UK as long as they want. The time to say no is at the border...or ideally earlier...

But yes, I think both existing immigrants and British born people would be better off with a bit less future immigration.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 19, 2018)

andysays said:


> I'm sure potential and existing immigrants will be hugely consoled by the knowledge that you don't _blame_ them, you just want them to be prevented from being here...


I just also wanted to share this link, since this thread is about Windrushers and their kids and grandkids.

I realise this guy doesn't speak for all Black Britons anymore than I speak for all white Britons but it's worth watching


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I just also wanted to share this link, since this thread is about Windrushers and their kids and grandkids.
> 
> I realise this guy doesn't speak for all Black Britons anymore than I speak for all white Britons but it's worth watching




So your point is 'oh look, here's a Black guy who agrees with me'? 

He isn't an immigrant btw. 

If you want to discuss brexit can you take your arguments to a brexit thread please? There are loads of them.

Picking a vid of guy whose parents are likely to have come to from the Caribbean doesn't make your points on topic at all. You are basically attempting to hijack the thread.


----------



## agricola (Apr 19, 2018)

More on "Albert Thompson":



> Albert Thompson, the Londoner whose case has come to epitomise the Windrush scandal, has spoken of his anguish as he remains uncertain about whether he is to get radiotherapy for his cancer a day after he heard Theresa May announce on television that he would “be receiving the treatment he needs”.
> 
> As the fallout from the scandal continued to emerge, Thompson told the Guardian he was distressed to have no clarity, and upset that he had had no apology from the Royal Marsden hospital for the ongoing interruption to his cancer treatment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2018)

agricola said:


> More on "Albert Thompson":



I'd feel exactly as he does. 

The _hostile environment_ has and will cost more lives. 

There was a case last year which I think sums up the callousness...


> A woman whose sister was refused entry to the UK to donate her “perfect match” bone marrow has died from leukaemia.
> 
> May Brown, 24, was told she needed an urgent stem cell transplant last year.
> 
> ...


Leukaemia patient whose sister was refused a UK visa to give her a transplant dies

What happens when you don't have a family or a support network to campaign for/with you? Rhetorical question obviously.


----------



## agricola (Apr 19, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I'd feel exactly as he does.
> 
> The _hostile environment_ has and will cost more lives.
> 
> ...



Theres callousness like that, and then there is the callousness required to tell a bloke - who is the living embodiment of this issue - that he has to wait two to three weeks for a letter telling him when his appointment is. 

Either the entire Government is in open revolt against May and people are doing this just to make her look stupid, or they have no idea of the potential damage that this will do to them (especially if, God forbid, his cancer has gotten worse whilst they were blocking his treatment).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2018)

agricola said:


> Theres callousness like that, and then there is the callousness required to tell a bloke - who is the living embodiment of this issue - that he has to wait two to three weeks for a letter telling him when his appointment is.
> 
> Either the entire Government is in open revolt against May and people are doing this just to make her look stupid, or they have no idea of the potential damage that this will do to them (especially if, God forbid, his cancer has gotten worse whilst they were blocking his treatment).



Why are you making a point about his case being callous as well? Of course it is. You surely can't think I feel any different. 

On your other point, I actually don't think they care. It'll be out of the news again soon enough. They've known about the questionable cases for a while already. In 2013 May said to deport and let the appeals happen from abroad. They don't give a shit. They hoped people would put up, shut up and accept their 'fate'.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 19, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> The second part of "So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open" is a complete misrepresentation of anything I've said.  The first part is an inaccurate rewording of something I gave a qualified answer to.
> 
> Well, no it wasn't.  You may think it was, but it's not exactly what you said.  And you may think that's nitpicky, but it isn't.  It's important to be precise about who is doing the doing, what doings are open to whom, where the various doings would take place,  how effective any of the doings might be, over whom I have influence, and so on.
> 
> This exchange reminds me of the YouGov surveys I do (I thought I'd get more politics than I do).  "How likely are you to recommend product x to a friend?" "Certain not to".  "You say you would recommend friends avoid product x.  Why is that?"  "No, I didn't say that.  But in answer to the second part, I wouldn't recommend product x to a friend because I don't have those sorts of conversations with friends.  And if anyone attempted to have those sorts of conversations with me I'd make it clear we were not friends".



Good to see you persevering with this.

This is what I have to deal with on regular basis in Brixton forum. Has started to grind me down. One would have thought the Windrush issue would have been big topic on Brixton forum. Sadly no.

As a long term resident of Brixton and London. ( My whole adult life)  I've found your posts and others here heartening. It's what I come on Urban for.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2018)

Thank you.


----------



## agricola (Apr 19, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Why are you making a point about his case being callous as well? Of course it is. You sure can't think any different.
> 
> On your other point, I actually don't think they care. It'll be out of the news again soon enough. They've known about the questionable cases for a while already. In 2013 May said to deport and let the appeals happen from abroad. They don't give a shit. They hoped people would put up, shut up and accept their 'fate'.



Sorry, that was poorly worded.  What I meant was it takes a certain level of callousness to do what they have been doing; it takes even more to do something like this whilst (a) they are claiming to be sorry and (b) they know he is in direct, regular contact with national journalists and MPs.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2018)

agricola said:


> Sorry, that was poorly worded.  What I meant was it takes a certain level of callousness to do what they have been doing; it takes even more to do something like this whilst (a) they are claiming to be sorry and (b) they know he is in direct, regular contact with national journalists and MPs.



For me it's tory buisness as usual... knowing that woman would die without her sister's bone marrow, leaving this guy hanging despite the focus on these cases at present...same evil.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 19, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> But of course that brings us back full circle to open borders yes/no.
> 
> If you are going to have immigration laws, and the vast majority of people, including most BME people, say we do, then we really need to enforce them.



But Mays hostile environment isn't about government agencies enforcing borders.

It's about getting landlords, employers to run checks on people.

This was new. A friend of mine who rents out her old flat told me told me she can get fined now if it turns out her tenant isn't "legal".

This as she pointed out raises a whole load of issues. She resents it any way. As she said it's not her job to be immigration control. Apart from that she's not a trained lawyer in right to be here. So in practice she errs on side of caution in whom she rents to.

A big piece of hostile environment was to make non government people do the nasty work under threat of big fines.

So ur happy with that?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 19, 2018)

Heard Michael Gove on radio this morning. He was asked about Windrush issue and about rights of EU citizens post Brexit. The interviewer was correct to say if post 1971 the status of Carriibbean people is still questioned will this government make sure that legalisation affecting EU nationals is written to ensure what's been happening to Windrush generation won't happen to them.

His answer was that this was still in process of being written. Not a categorical answer.

As my partner is one of those EU nationals , and reading posts on this thread about people trying to get there spouse right to stay here, I am getting worried.

The second thing that got me about Gove interview ( which was good) was the way he presented himself as liberal and tolerant.

Of course he thought this country was tolerant and welcoming to immigrants. Asked about May "hostile environment" policy he said to much had been made of that.

So his position was the classic liberal one. Ive told you I'm tolerant so stop going on about details like hostile environment.

He also deflected Windrush issue from Tories by saying how good it was that "we" were having a "national conversation" about the contribution of Windrush generation to this country. Turning an issue that is about Tories. In particular May when she was Home Secretary to an issue where "we" as a nation all discuss this issue.

Gove is clever.

He was trying to put forward idea of good immigration controls. Also that immigration that happened years ago is now a good thing.

I was listening to this in morning and getting more wound up. This is the liberal view that so hard to argue against.

It's the liberal I like immigration but want immigration controls line. Maddening.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 19, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> The second part of "So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open" is a complete misrepresentation of anything I've said.  The first part is an inaccurate rewording of something I gave a qualified answer to.



I'm sure you are perfectly aware that I quoted it back at you to provoke a response. It's an exaggeration to call it a complete misrepresentation. I pulled out two statements that seemed inconsistent because they were both half-answers to the question that I'm interested in. But it's a question you don't want to answer. You've explained as much as you are able why you don't want to answer it. I accept that you don't want to answer it, and I don't think there's any point us going any further.



teuchter said:


> But my original question was specifically about what should happen at the UK's borders.





danny la rouge said:


> Well, no it wasn't.  You may think it was, but it's not exactly what you said.  And you may think that's nitpicky, but it isn't.  It's important to be precise about who is doing the doing, what doings are open to whom, where the various doings would take place,  how effective any of the doings might be, over whom I have influence, and so on.



This was the question:



teuchter said:


> What should we do in the meantime though. While we are "working hard" to answer the right questions rather than the wrong questions - what do we do? Open borders or not? It's a legitimate question.



You can try and tell me that my question wasn't what I thought it was. I know what it was. I think I know the ways in which you want me to make it more precise, but essentially you want me to construct the question on your terms, to an extent where it seems we can't really take the discussion anywhere. Ultimately, you it appears you don't want to discuss ways of dealing with things that involve processes reliant on the mechanics of parliament and so on. I on the other hand think that there are certain things that simply can't be dealt with without some engagement with those processes.

By the way it's not that I don't get what you are saying when you talk about the YouGov surveys. I know what you mean.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 19, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I'm reading this and wonder do we both live in Brixton area?



Yes of course we do. Why do you ask? Do you want to try and make out I'm "anti-immigrant"?

I'm sure you're aware that most of the UK is not anything like Brixton; and that's not irrelevant to the reasons we're both living here having come from elsewhere.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 19, 2018)

Its funny in a way that TM talks recently about red lines, this for me is past that. They are tormenting people, mentally and physically. Thankfully we have a press though. Or at least one that is still quite worthwhile. That would probably need proper argument, and I'm not going to do it now, but that is my position. I'm cognisent of the fact that it is the very same press that creates this toxic environment. Its the enemy that should be tormented, not our brethren/comrades.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I don't blame immigrants for driving down wages. I blame immigration policy. Do people understand the difference?


how about fixing the blame on the people who should be blamed - the employers?
just a thought


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

Streathamite said:


> how about fixing the blame on the people who should be blamed - the employers?
> just a thought


Employers don't set immigration policy.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> But Mays hostile environment isn't about government agencies enforcing borders.
> 
> It's about getting landlords, employers to run checks on people.
> 
> ...


Happy, no. Do I think it is needed? Sadly yes. It's all too easy to tell a lie and get through the border itself, to say you are here on tourism or to visit family. 

Sadly we sometimes need to catch people later on

How would you enforce the borders?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I on the other hand think that there are certain things that simply can't be dealt with without some engagement with those processes


[the mechanics of parliament] 

I'm happy to _discuss_ what they do. But I see that as something I'm observing, rather than something I'm involved in. I don't think of any Parliament run by any party as "we", but as "them". It's this idea of _engagement with the processes_ that I think is a dead end.  I think the history of the Labour Party nicely illustrates exactly that.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Yes of course we do. Why do you ask? Do you want to try and make out I'm "anti-immigrant"?



This is what you said in post 186




> I'm aware that this position results in a situation where the suffering of people elsewhere in the world is not alleviated when perhaps it could be. I'm aware that a consequence of maintaining borders is that desperate people drown in the med. I'm not going to shy away from that.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 20, 2018)

This is a not-half-bad take on Home Office policy by Nesrine Malik in yesterday's Guardian. 

She emphasises what's been talked of earlier in this thread -- that the way "the Windrush generation" has been treated is no isolated aberration




			
				Nesrine Malik said:
			
		

> There has been no bureaucratic snafu ....The error was that the dragnet picked up some people who fall into a popular sympathy sweet spot. The elderly ones who came here from the Commonwealth to rebuild Britain and who even the Daily Mail can look kindly upon. They appeal to a patrician nostalgia and have a humanising narrative that others who come to this country in different circumstances do not enjoy. An apology and exceptions made for Windrush cases alone is not enough. If we are to be content with only this, then the government’s furtive shimmy away from the crime scene will be successful, and the Home Office’s daily violations of human rights will continue. If we are to prevent the assaults against those we can relate to, we must also be angry for those we cannot.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 20, 2018)

Distillation into good and bad immigrants


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> This is what you said in post 186
> 
> "I'm aware that this position results in a situation where the suffering of people elsewhere in the world is not alleviated when perhaps it could be. I'm aware that a consequence of maintaining borders is that desperate people drown in the med. I'm not going to shy away from that."


It brings us back, doesn't it, to the Kenan Malik piece I quoted from earlier:

“I am always struck by how silent liberals are when it comes to the actual use by European nations of gunboats against refugees and the attempt to wall off Europe by paying millions to the most unsavoury regimes from Turkey to Eritrea to Libya to lock up would-be immigrants in hell-hole detention centres just out of sight of Brussels, Paris and London.”

Some just don't want to confront their cognitive dissonance; others, like Teuchter, at least have the honesty to admit the consequences of the policies they support.

The question is why single out immigration?  Immigration has not_ caused_ the problems that people face.  To quote Malik yet again:

_"However low one caps immigration, it will not affect austerity policy, or the atomisation of society, or the crisis in the NHS, or the neutering of trade unions."_

And yet, immigration quotas are what we have.  And in order to satisfy those quotas, people who have been settled here since they were children are falling foul of the rules.  These shifting rules (and in this case shifting borders - these people were relocating _within _what was at that time a greater border as defined by the centre) leave liberals flailing to define what is citizenship itself, a concept they are keen on but can no longer pin down.  Because immigration has become the shorthand for the locus of today's political debate, in which instead of looking for the actual causes of austerity or whatever it might be, people talk of numbers, of dilution of culture, of the country being full.  Economic and social issues expressed in cultural terms.  Not that I'm saying teuchter has done that, but he has accepted the narrative that This Is What The Issue We Face Is (or maybe just This Is An Issue We Face), but either way that the Answer must be sought in a Bureaucratic Response.  Well, a bureaucratic response leads _inexorably_ to Windrush children being repatriated, gunboats in the Med, and millions paid to unsavoury regimes to run detention centres the likes of which no European sensibility would be prepared to take direct responsibility for.

I return again to saying that the response to this division of people into us and them _has_ to be solidarity.  And through that process we need to interrogate the reason immigration became the scapegoat for economic and political dissatisfaction in the first place.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Distillation into good and bad immigrants


I don't think life is that clear cut. What about someone who got a drugs conviction in the 90s but has worked all his life? Good immigrant or bad immigrant?

What about a Windrush immigrant who was involved in Brixton rioting, has spent time in prison, but also cared for his mum? Good immigrant or bad immigrant?

You can't simply break it down like that. There are lots of people with jobs who are utter cunts. Lots of people without who are decent, whatever the Daily Mail may try to suggest.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 20, 2018)

I'll try and come back to some of the other points later.

But "solidarity" as a response, as I see it, just isn't going to change the fact that are gunboats in the med. I do agree that as a response it can help with things like how existing immigrants are recieved, and accepted, and so on. If the  theory is that it's part of a build up to some kind of revolution, which then changes the gunboats-in-the-med situation through non-parliamentary mechanisms - I simply don't see that as plausible. It's not going to happen. Of course, maybe I will be proven wrong. But because I don't believe that's going to ever happen, I resort to the unsatisfactory beaurocratic methods as a plausible means to make things less bad.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I'll try and come back to some of the other points later.
> 
> But "solidarity" as a response, as I see it, just isn't going to change the fact that are gunboats in the med. I do agree that as a response it can help with things like how existing immigrants are recieved, and accepted, and so on. If the  theory is that it's part of a build up to some kind of revolution, which then changes the gunboats-in-the-med situation through non-parliamentary mechanisms - I simply don't see that as plausible. It's not going to happen. Of course, maybe I will be proven wrong. But because I don't believe that's going to ever happen, I resort to the unsatisfactory beaurocratic methods as a plausible means to make things less bad.


Solidarity as a response, if it included enough people, could most certainly change the gunboats-in-the-med situation. We're nowhere near that at this moment in time, which is perhaps what you're pointing out. I doubt dlr or anyone else would disagree. But aiming for something that could work is something. I don't even see that you aim at anything here - the 'unsatisfactory bureaucratic methods' method is what has brought us here, is part of the problem - the disgusting, and in effect racist, visa system; the burden of proof placed on individuals to prove that they have a legal right to be here, where in any court of law it is normally accepted that it is the state that has to prove its case before it can act against people. The arbitrary use of violence by the state is the hallmark of totalitarianism, and yet it is happening here every week at the moment.

Regarding immigration controls, which you appear to consider a necessary evil, I would simply point out that, pre-1962, every Commonwealth citizen had an open-ended right to come to the UK. Somehow we survived ok.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> So your point is 'oh look, here's a Black guy who agrees with me'?
> 
> He isn't an immigrant btw.


I'm very aware of that, thanks...



> Picking a vid of guy whose parents are likely to have come to from the Caribbean doesn't make your points on topic at all. You are basically attempting to hijack the thread.



I'm no more trying to ''hijack" it than anyone else is. We all agree that the treatment of these people is awful. That was established pages ago. Even the Daily Mail agrees it's awful


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The arbitrary use of violence by the state is the hallmark of totalitarianism


Also worth closely watching is the use of employers and landlords and others to police racist immigration regulations.  Brings to mind "everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state".


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> But "solidarity" as a response, as I see it, just isn't going to change the fact that are gunboats in the med.


Stands a better chance than voting Green, say. And it's at least doing something to redress the divisive forces at play.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Also worth closely watching is the use of employers and landlords and others to police racist immigration regulations.




If we don't use employers and landlords, then who?


----------



## trabuquera (Apr 20, 2018)

How about the organs of the state specifically set up for the purpose of administering and enforcing immigration law, rather than civilians?


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> If we don't use employers and landlords, then who?


Neighbours, co-workers, family members perhaps?


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2018)

'we'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> If we don't use employers and landlords, then who?


'we'? Don't include me in this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> If we don't use employers and landlords, then who?


what, you mean if people live off grid?


----------



## bimble (Apr 20, 2018)

Current system is so crazy. Went to a thing yesterday eve at a charity that helps people who have survived torture.  Listened to stories of people waiting Ten Years to get their indefinite leave to remain. Meanwhile £36 in vouchers per week.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> If we don't use employers and landlords, then who?


Sorry, who is "we"?


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2018)

Actual stazi tactics, and the wide-eyed _just asking questions_ shit reckons _it's regrettable but what else could we do?_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

We're all in it together, standing in solidarity with our employers and our landlords to see off the foreign menace... 

dlr has it right - this is a fascist vision of the corporate state.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> If we don't use employers and landlords, then who?


 
Doctors, Nurses and teachers obvs

Ensure there is no hiding place for these undesirables. Every patriotic citizen has his duty to expose them whenever they find them.

/joking but not really a joking matter

Mrs NBE was tasked with organising a trip to the battlefields for history a couple of years ago & has sourced some  external charitable funding to pretty much cover it . Most of the kids did not have paperwork to enable them to leave the country ( extreme example but it is a pretty unique school in that regard)


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2018)

It isn't actually a joke - that's the reality.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Solidarity as a response, if it included enough people, could most certainly change the gunboats-in-the-med situation. We're nowhere near that at this moment in time, which is perhaps what you're pointing out. I doubt dlr or anyone else would disagree. But aiming for something that could work is something. I don't even see that you aim at anything here - the 'unsatisfactory bureaucratic methods' method is what has brought us here, is part of the problem - the disgusting, and in effect racist, visa system; the burden of proof placed on individuals to prove that they have a legal right to be here, where in any court of law it is normally accepted that it is the state that has to prove its case before it can act against people. The arbitrary use of violence by the state is the hallmark of totalitarianism, and yet it is happening here every week at the moment.
> 
> Regarding immigration controls, which you appear to consider a necessary evil, I would simply point out that, pre-1962, every Commonwealth citizen had an open-ended right to come to the UK. Somehow we survived ok.



Yes, I think I effectively consider immigration controls a necessary evil, but I should say that I'm entirely willing to change my mind. I can't say I have a clear view on immigration; it has changed somewhat post Brexit referendum because the message coming out of that seemed to be that people like me - who generally regard immigration if anything as positive at least in terms of direct consequences for me - have been guilty of underestimating or ignoring the consequences it has for people who don't live in cosmopolitan London and who have less secure means of income. 

I'm open to being convinced that I should discard those concerns, and I'm also open to being convinced that an essentially open border is a feasible option in the near future and without wholesale political revolution.

I don't think the pre-1962 argument is convincing. I don't think the situation then is meaningfully comparable. Firstly we didn't have open immigration to the whole world. Secondly previously to that point the amount of immigration had been relatively low and the reason the additional controls were introduced was that the numbers were going up. Yes we survived ok in the period of time when levels of immigration were low enough not to provoke calls for increased controls. Is it realistic to suggest that, were we to open borders to anyone in the world right now, the numbers we'd see would be in the same order as they were in the 1950s?

For those who advocate a fully open border - is the argument that the numbers simply woudln't be as high as people imagine they would be, and therefore below a level which they'd accept would become problematic? Or is the argument that it's a fallacy to consider any level of immigration to be problematic?

I'm genuinely open to being convinced. I'd like to be convinced because of the clearer conscience such a position would bring with it. That's only the case if I genuinely believe it's a realistic option though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> realistic option


Perhaps you could begin by asking yourself how you are defining "realistic" and what led you to believe that certain things aren't realistic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I don't think the pre-1962 argument is convincing. I don't think the situation then is meaningfully comparable. Firstly we didn't have open immigration to the whole world. Secondly previously to that point the amount of immigration had been relatively low and the reason the additional controls were introduced was that the numbers were going up.


Point of order on this one - there was net emigration from the UK throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s. So no, that is not the reason the additional controls were introduced.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

trabuquera said:


> How about the organs of the state specifically set up for the purpose of administering and enforcing immigration law, rather than civilians?


And how would you do that? Visit every rented property just to check the landlord hasn't let it to illegals?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I'm genuinely open to being convinced.


You might begin your quest here:

“The problem is not that white workers are desperate to protect their ethnic identity. It is, rather, that in the absence of political mechanisms and social movements that can challenge their wider marginalisation, such identity is all that many have to lean upon.

However low one caps immigration, it will not affect austerity policy, or the atomisation of society, or the crisis in the NHS, or the neutering of trade unions. The immigration debate cannot be won simply by debating immigration, whether from an economic or a cultural viewpoint. Anxieties about immigration are an expression of a wider sense of political voicelessness, abandonment and disengagement. Until those problems are tackled, the anxieties will remain.”

That working-class lives are more fraught is not down to immigration | Kenan Malik


“Too many who rightly bemoan the corrosion of working-class organisations see the problem as too much immigration. Too many who have a liberal view on immigration are willing to accept attacks on working-class living standards. Until both those blinkered approaches are confronted, there will be no real challenge to the populists, nor to the erosion of the influence of the left.”

THE WORKING CLASS, IMMIGRATION & THE LEFT


“The forms of social organization that once gave working class lives identity, solidarity, indeed dignity, have disappeared. Much the same developments can be seen in many other European nations. ‘One of the biggest failures’ of contemporary mainstream political parties, the American philosopher Michael Sandel has observed, ‘has been the failure to take seriously and to speak directly to people’s aspiration to feel that they have some meaningful say in shaping the forces that govern their lives’.

The result has been the creation of what many commentators in Britain call the ‘left behind’ working class. In France, there has been much talk of ‘peripheral France’, a phrase coined by the social geographer Christophe Guilluy to describe people ‘pushed out by the deindustrialization and gentrification of the urban centers’, who ‘live away from the economic and decision-making centers in a state of social and cultural non-integration’ and have come to ‘feel excluded’. Both these terms are, in my view, problematic, but both also give a sense of the social, political and existential changes that have been wrought.

Immigration has played almost no part in fostering the changes that have left so many feeling disaffected. Immigrants are not responsible for the weakening of the labour movement, or the transformation of social democratic parties, or the imposition of austerity policies. Immigration has, however, come to be a means through which many perceive these changes.

The so-called ‘left behind’ have been left behind largely because of economic and political changes. But they have come to see their marginalization primarily as a _cultural_ loss. In part, the same social and economic changes that have led to the marginalization of the ‘left behind’ have also made it far more difficult to view that marginalization in political terms. The very decline of the economic and political power of the working class and the weakening of labour organizations and social democratic parties, have helped obscure the economic and political roots of social problems. And as culture has become the medium through which social issues are refracted, so the ‘left behind’ have also come to see their problems in cultural terms. They, too, have turned to the language of identity to express their discontent.

Through this process, the meaning of solidarity has transformed. Politically, the sense of belonging to a group or collective has historically been expressed in two broad forms: through the politics of identity and through the politics of solidarity. The former stresses attachment to common identities based on such categories as race, nation, gender or culture. The latter draws people into a collective not because of a given identity but to further a political or social goal. Where the politics of identity divides, the politics of solidarity finds collective purpose across the fissures of race or gender, sexuality or religion, culture or nation. But it is the politics of solidarity that has crumbled over the past two decades as social movements have eroded. For many today, the only form of collective politics that seem possible is that rooted in identity.”

POPULISM AND IMMIGRATION


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

'illegals' 

The language surrounding this stuff is poisonous.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> And how would you do that? Visit every rented property just to check the landlord hasn't let it to illegals?


Thing is, you're asking the wrong people these questions. I don't agree with the UK's immigration policy. I have no interest in helping the state administer a policy I consider to be evil. I have every interest in seeing their efforts to enforce it fail. There is no 'we' here - it is 'they'. My 'we' is much more likely to include the 'illegals'.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'illegals'
> 
> The language surrounding this stuff is poisonous.



You may have a point there. Illegal immigrant has been shortened to 'illegals', not by me I might add. 

Person Without The Right of Abode is very long, Shorten it to PWTRA?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> You may have a point there. Illegal immigrant has been shortened to 'illegals', not by me I might add.
> 
> Person Without The Right of Abode is very long, Shorten it to PWTRA?


The French 'sans papiers' would be better.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is, you're asking the wrong people these questions. I don't agree with the UK's immigration policy.


I have to obey laws I don't agree with as well! So does everyone.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

> You may have a point there. Illegal immigrant has been shortened to 'illegals', not by me I might add.



What do you mean not by you?

You have just done that. You don't get a pass because someone else has done so before...you are perpetuating dehumanising language and attitudes.

Stop pretending to be innocent..you are fooling no-one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I have to obey laws I don't agree with as well! So does everyone.


'don't you see? It was ze law'


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> What do you mean not by you?
> 
> You have just done that. You don't get a pass because someone else has done so before...you are perpetuating dehumanising language and attitudes.
> 
> Stop pretending to be innocent..you are fooling no-one.


I'm anything but innocent, and I'm not trying to fool anyone. Lots of people have used that word to refer to people without the right to be in the UK, and I agree it's probably time to find a better word.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I have to obey laws I don't agree with as well! So does everyone.


If we reach a stage where it becomes a serious legal matter to be found to be 'harbouring an illegal', I will make a point of seeking to do just that. Some laws need to be broken.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> 'don't you see? It was ze law'


*resists Godwin*


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I'm anything but innocent, and I'm not trying to fool anyone. Lots of people have used that word to refer to people without the right to be in the UK, and I agree it's probably time to find a better word.



Lot's of people where? 

Do you do everything that others do?

What kind of weak excuse is that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I'm anything but innocent, and I'm not trying to fool anyone. Lots of people have used that word to refer to people without the right to be in the UK, and I agree it's probably time to find a better word.


You should take responsibility for the language you use. That others use hateful terms is no excuse for you doing the same. And 'lots of people' also firmly reject such things, as I would have thought you would have realised from posting here.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Lot's of people where?
> 
> Do you do everything that others do?
> 
> What kind of weak excuse is that?



Sorry miss, won't do it again.

Seriously, I'd have no problems with a new word being found, although in itself it won't actually change anyone's status.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I have to obey laws I don't agree with as well!


You don't have to.  You choose to.

You of course never smoke a joint or download music or films you haven't paid for.


----------



## trabuquera (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> And how would you do that? Visit every rented property just to check the landlord hasn't let it to illegals?



No. Immigration officials who have reasonable grounds to believe someone doesn't have the right to be here can ask for their papers. If they don't have them, a legal process ensues. Why do you feel the need to have every property in the land inspected because of the *possible* presence of people without legal rights to live in the UK? Why extend bureaucracy that far?

Where (abusive) landlords have been exploiting immigrants, legal or illegal, by cramming them into substandard accommodation (which is a genuine problem and risk to health)  - or by not paying taxes on their rental income - then yeah they should be fined to the moon and back. But simply renting a room / flat / mansion to someone who doesn't have the right immigration papers? I struggle to see that as a crime tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Sorry miss, won't do it again.
> 
> Seriously, I'd have no problems with a new word being found, although in itself it won't actually change anyone's status.


ffs. You appear to be blaming others for your use of the term 'illegals'. Sort yourself out.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ffs. You appear to be blaming others for your use of the term 'illegals'. Sort yourself out.


Look, I can't make it any clearer. The point about the term ''Ilegals" is a fair one and I'll use another term in future.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

trabuquera said:


> No. Immigration officials who have reasonable grounds to believe someone doesn't have the right to be here can ask for their papers. If they don't have them, a legal process ensues.



And how do you get those ''reasonable grounds", if not from public information.

The police rely heavily on public information. Yes, sometimes they spot a crime whilst on routine patrol, but how do you spot someone who doesn't have the right to be in the UK?


----------



## trabuquera (Apr 20, 2018)

You ask to see their passport?


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

trabuquera said:


> You ask to see their passport?


Which not everyone has! And almost no one carries around with them. Thats why I think we made a mistake in rejecting ID cards.


----------



## trabuquera (Apr 20, 2018)

My point is, if you think someone needs investigating, then the police / the state / the immigration service already had the necessary powers before these hostile environment / duty to report measures were brought in. I don't feel that pre-emptive, universal, pre-checking the immigration status of absolutely everyone is a duty which devolves to every single possible landlord, employer, or NHS employee. Nor do I feel it's worth the resources used up to be hunting out every possible person in the UK without their papers 100% up to date. Do you not see the difference between these two approaches?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Which not everyone has! And almost no one carries around with them. Thats why I think we made a mistake in rejecting ID cards.


Which, if you want them to be carried at all times, should be compulsory, right?

Have a look back through the list of things you're supporting: employers, landlords and others enforcing state laws on citizenship; members of the public informing on people; carrying of compulsory ID documents...

I've got some documentaries I can recommend you watch.


----------



## andysays (Apr 20, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Which, if you want them to be carried at all times, should be compulsory, right?
> 
> Have a look back through the list of things you're supporting: employers, landlords and others enforcing state laws on citizenship; members of the public informing on people; carrying of compulsory ID documents...
> 
> I've got some documentaries I can recommend you watch.


I have a growing suspicion he's watched them already, repeatedly...


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Which, if you want them to be carried at all times, should be compulsory, right?


Compulsory to have, yes, not to carry. I personally carry my driving licence all the time, but it would be fucking ridculous to make it law.


> I've got some documentaries I can recommend you watch.



I've got a fairly blank weekend ahead, and the weather is forecast to break so go ahead. Seriously, I'd be interested.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Compulsory to have, yes, not to carry.


So, "but who carries their ID card with them?" right?

Documentaries_: 
_
The Nazis: A Warning from History.
 -Looks at how the German people allowed the rise of Hitler.

The Sorrow and the Pity.
- Looks at collaboration under Vichy.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> And how do you get those ''reasonable grounds", if not from public information.
> 
> The police rely heavily on public information. Yes, sometimes they spot a crime whilst on routine patrol, but how do you spot someone who doesn't have the right to be in the UK?


 
They should be made to wear some kind of badge or emblem to signify their status. if you have nothing to hide, then this should not be a problem

/


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> So, "but who carries their ID card with them?" right?



David Cameron was opposed to ID cards, so he said, on the grounds he didn't want the police going round demanding "verr are your papers?" ( And his German accent was *bad*)


What in fact has happened here is that people have been demanded to produce papers that were never bloomin issued!!



> Documentaries_:
> _
> The Nazis: A Warning from History.
> -Looks at how the German people allowed the rise of Hitler.
> ...



I've seen a warning from history' but I'll try and find " the sorrow and the pity", I've not heard of that one.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> They should be made to wear some kind of badge or emblem to signify their status. if you have nothing to hide, then this should not be a problem
> 
> /


If you disagree with someone, be sure to compare them with the Nazis. It's a novel, underused technique.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> What in fact has happened here is that people have been demanded to produce papers that were never bloomin issued!!


What do you think they would have had to do to obtain their ID card?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 20, 2018)

I just have.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2018)

slo-mo isn't a nazi, but he is a dull racist who's already been drummed off of urban more times than I can count.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> slo-mo isn't a nazi, but he is a dull racist who's already been drummed off of urban more times than I can count.


Who did he used to be?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

Back on topic then?



> Winston Jones was admitted to hospital with a brain aneurysm in 2014, which he attributes to the stress he was under as he tried to sort out his passport problems.
> 
> The 62-year-old spent five months in hospital, where staff told the former British Rail worker that he might need to pay for his treatment, even though he had paid UK taxes for more than 40 years.
> 
> ...



'I thought I would die': Windrush man left homeless after brain surgery


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> What do you think they would have had to do to obtain their ID card?


But the issue would have been resolved much earlier, and without people losing jobs and being dragged off to detention. 

If it had been said in say 2008 that in 3 years time everyone will need an ID card, the issue would have come to light at an early stage, possibly before the boarding cards has been destroyed.

But as I say, hindsight is always 20-20


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> But the issue would have been resolved much earlier, and without people losing jobs and being dragged off to detention.
> 
> If it had been said in say 2008 that in 3 years time everyone will need an ID card, the issue would have come to light at an early stage, possibly before the boarding cards has been destroyed.
> 
> But as I say, hindsight is always 20-20



You seem to imagine that had these people applied for the ID card under the scheme you are suggesting would have solved everything that they would not have had any problems.

Are you sure?

When years of medical, NI and tax records have been ignored in some of these cases..you don't think the same would've happened if they had had to apply for a poxy ID card!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

Why would the ID scheme have worked when all else failed? 



> _They took him to Hackney council where he saw the manager, who told him: “We know you are legal. The problem is going to be how to prove it.”
> 
> He spent years trying to collect the evidence. He returned to Hackney and Stoke Newington college, where he had studied maths and science, but it had been converted into flats. He visited Hackney town hall and the libraries. “No papers had been stored anywhere,” he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> You seem to imagine that had these people applied for the ID card under the scheme you are suggesting would have solved everything that they would not have had any problems.



No I'm not imagining that at all. Not at all. Purely that i think the problems would have come to light earlier. 

Am I sure? No I'm not, you can't be sure of owt when you are talking about a hypothetical past event.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

Mis-read, my bad.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> No I'm not imagining that at all. Not at all. Purely that i think the problems would have come to light earlier.
> 
> Am I sure? No I'm not, you can't be sure of owt when you are talking about a hypothetical past event.


Problem is that you start from a false premise. You talk of 'we', and you assume (consciously or not) that those in power are acting for 'our' collective benefit.


----------



## andysays (Apr 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who did he used to be?


And does he have the papers to prove his right to be here? Given his views posted on this thread he should definitely accept that anyone has the right to demand evidence of his ID at any time, on penalty  of immediate expulsion if he fails to comply.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is that you start from a false premise. You talk of 'we', and you assume (consciously or not) that those in power are acting for 'our' collective benefit.


Well in theory they are supposed to, in a democracy. 

Trouble is, this is a British democracy.


----------



## klang (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> illegals


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Well in theory they are supposed to, in a democracy.
> 
> Trouble is, this is a British democracy.


So you agree that your reasoning is faulty?


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So you agree that your reasoning is faulty?


I certainly think that both politicians and professional civil servants are capable of taking some awful decisions. Decisions that are cruel or stupid or both.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Fucking hell.


Skwawkbox's cynical deployment of Windrush & Stephen Lawrence to defend Marc Wadsworth is a bit shit. He either has a case to answer or not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I certainly think that both politicians and professional civil servants are capable of taking some awful decisions. Decisions that are cruel or stupid or both.


These decisions don't come out of nowhere. The Daily Mail, for instance, will shout from its front page about the foreigners abusing the NHS or benefits system (usually based on very flimsy evidence), and now it is wading in to shout about the disgusting treatment of the Windrush generation. It helped to create the latter with things like the former. Such things also appear to have helped to form the opinions of people like you.

You need to throw away a lot of what you think and start again.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> Skwawkbox's cynical deployment of Windrush & Stephen Lawrence to defend Marc Wadsworth is a bit shit. He either has a case to answer or not.



The article quotes him and there's video so you can make your own mind up about that surely? 

But yeah, you focus on that and not the nasty use of 'windrush child' as an insult against Abbott.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> The article quotes him and there's video so you can make your own mind up about that surely?
> 
> But yeah, you focus on that and not the nasty use of 'windrush child' as an insult against Abbott.


Erm it's Wadsworth who's being referred to as a Windrush child (by himself and Swawkbox) not Abbott.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> Erm it's Wadsworth who's being referred to as a Windrush child (by himself and Swawkbox) not Abbott.



I read it as something Streeting had said.



> Streeting has clashed twice with Labour front-bencher Diane Abbott – and has sent an email inviting colleagues and others to join him next week in a show of strength against a black Labour activist and ‘Windrush child’.



Fair enough if I am wrong.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2018)

It isn't something Streeting said. It's a very badly written article though, so it's unsurprising some people might read it as that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> It isn't something Streeting said. It's a very badly written article though, so it's unsurprising some people might read it as that.



Fair enough. I'm not giving stuff my full attention either as a I am at work.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2018)

You can usually assume Swawkbox articles aren't worth sharing tbh. They're on the _Canary _axis of unreliably partisan propaganda.


----------



## no-no (Apr 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I'd agree with your sentiment.
> 
> In Brixton there is an example of this.
> 
> ...



Union reps should be targeting immigrants really, maybe they do. I suspect many of them aren't interested in taking action, they've come to work not strike. Union membership is lower amongst immigrants particularly eastern europeans.

It defies logic though because they're also exploited more and would probably benefit most from a union.

This raises the question of immigrants who might refuse to unionise, who are happy with current pay and working conditions. Scabs? certainly lacking in working class solidarity.


----------



## campanula (Apr 20, 2018)

I just don't know where to go with this. I feel my family are being displaced, discounted, unwanted...and astonishingly, it is nothing whatsoever to do with immigrants or refugees and everything to do with global capitalism. Yes, there has been a massive influx of outsiders in my town, pushing rents into the stratosphere, jamming up infrastructure, swallowing resources...but these people are a privileged subsection, a bit like finance or media - Silicon fen is under the cosh of an enormous wave of transient tech-workers, employed at high wages but moving continually (and investing nothing in the community). Councils are bending over to accommodate them (fucking get their own dedicated rail station!)...along with the usual student accommodation scams.

The agricultural heartlands of East Anglia have always employed cheap labour - ranging from Irish, Italians, prisoners of war, South Africans, Borstal boys, Eastern Europeans, travellers...nothing much has changed here (same shitty living standards, gangmasters, modern slavery and illegal employment...but it is the twin plagues of property investment and an unbalanced and deeply unfair labour market which is finally breaking neighbourhoods and families apart.

So yeah, it is the structures of capitalism which needs policing - not borders.

I often feel very uncomfortable when confronted with the classic liberal argument which denies people any special rights just because of where they live...but I admit, I feel bloody resentful...but more of the situation which casually rewards some while punishing others and consolidates wealth and power regardless of consequence.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

no-no said:


> . Union membership is lower amongst immigrants * particularly eastern europeans.*



I'm so glad you've said that, I'm not sure I would have dared to. 

I too am curious why. Perhaps they feel if they join a union and seek solidarity with their British colleagues, they won't be seen as 'hard working immigrants'?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I'm so glad you've said that, I'm not sure I would have dared to.
> 
> I too am curious why. Perhaps they feel if they join a union and seek solidarity with their British colleagues, they won't be seen as 'hard working immigrants'?



 My first thoughts would have been to wonder if it was to do with them seeing their time here as temporary or if there is a culture of unionism in their home countries?

Why would your first thought be so negative?


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> My first thoughts would have been to wonder if it was to do with them seeing their time here as temporary or if there is a culture of unionism in their home countries?



I don't know if there is a culture of union membership in Eastern Europe or not, I am curious.

I do know of course that the Polish union Solidarity played a big role in overthrowing Communism, but that was 30 years ago now. And of course Poland is only one Eastern European country.

And before anyone cries 'off topic', no-no started it


----------



## bimble (Apr 20, 2018)

Totally just anecdotal but my dad was an immigant from eastern europe (came here from czech in 68 and was given indefinite leave to remain really quickly). Having grown up in a shitty corrupt version of what he was told was "communism" he was always very pro 'free enterprise' & anti-union, resented having to be in the musicians union even to work. . Maybe he thought unionism was something like what he'd escaped from. Or maybe he's just an old man and not worth extrapolating anything from.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I don't know if there is a culture of union membership in Eastern Europe or not, I am curious.



Seems union density is low. Click the country name on the right for stats...maybe a bit old but...

Trade Unions  / Poland / Countries / National Industrial Relations / Home - WORKER PARTICIPATION.eu

You sidestepped my question though..why would you imagine there would be no solidarity because they want to maintain the 'hard working immigrant' label? It seems like the most negative thing you could have imagined as being the reason.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Fair enough. I'm not giving stuff my full attention either as a I am at work.


Didn't take me long to get far enough into that article to see it was junk journalism. If you've not got time to check something properly best just not to post it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Didn't take me long to get far enough into that article to see it was junk journalism. If you've not got time to check something properly best just not to post it.



Alright, don't rub it in. killer B made the point clear enough


----------



## crossthebreeze (Apr 20, 2018)

no-no said:


> Union reps should be targeting immigrants really, maybe they do. I suspect many of them aren't interested in taking action, they've come to work not strike. Union membership is lower amongst immigrants particularly eastern europeans.
> 
> It defies logic though because they're also exploited more and would probably benefit most from a union.
> 
> This raises the question of immigrants who might refuse to unionise, who are happy with current pay and working conditions. Scabs? certainly lacking in working class solidarity.


There's so many variables around union membership stats - public sector workers more likely to be TU members than private sector, casualised and part-time workers less likely to be union members than full-time workers, levels of union membership differ greatly between industries and occupation type, and there's a strange intersection between gender and occupation type - so female process, plant and machine operators much less likely to be unionised than men in similar occupations, but female professionals are more likely to be unionised than men with similar occupations (and professionals are the most unionised occupational sector).  I would suspect that stats around union membership amongst migrant workers can often be explained by the other variables.


----------



## no-no (Apr 20, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> There's so many variables around union membership stats - public sector workers more likely to be TU members than private sector, casualised and part-time workers less likely to be union members than full-time workers, levels of union membership differ greatly between industries and occupation type, and there's a strange intersection between gender and occupation type - so female process, plant and machine operators much less likely to be unionised than men in similar occupations, but female professionals are more likely to be unionised than men with similar occupations (and professionals are the most unionised occupational sector).  I would suspect that stats around union membership amongst migrant workers can often be explained by the other variables.



I can see that, unionisation tends to be a cultural thing within each industry. I've never come across any union representation within IT for example although for other parts of the communications industry it's more prevalent. I've never worked for a large corporation mind you, I have no idea if the guys working the nightshift at the data centres are unionised.

It might be explained by immigrants mostly working in trades with low union membership. Still, if immigrant surplus labour has been supressing local wages (and it seems it has been looking at the reports of wage rises across multiple industries due to a post brexit worker shortage), it still raises questions about pan european solidarity doesn't it?

How right on is it to move to an area with a surplus of trade X to work? I don't think someone doing that has anything to feel guilty about but the locals also shouldn't feel bad about voting for border controls in order to protect local wages esp when we know that employers are exploiting many of these workers. 

Found this earlier - https://wiserd.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/TU_ResearchNote3.pdf

"Levels of trade union coverage derived for migrant employees from A8 countries (16%) and A2 countries (13%) are estimated to be less than half that estimated for UK born employees (32%)"

Something has to give, immigrants need to be unionised (unlikely) or we impose border controls (looking more likely), the former would have been preferable, prob too late for that now.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> You sidestepped my question though..why would you imagine there would be no solidarity because they want to maintain the 'hard working immigrant' label? It seems like the most negative thing you could have imagined as being the reason.



I sidestepped it because I don't really have an answer as such. Rightly or wrongly less unionised employees are going to be more appealing to employers?


----------



## no-no (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I'm so glad you've said that, I'm not sure I would have dared to.
> 
> I too am curious why. Perhaps they feel if they join a union and seek solidarity with their British colleagues, they won't be seen as 'hard working immigrants'?



The fact outright racists might find this info convenient should not be a reason not to mention it.

I think you might be right and they're generally happy earning sterling and probably don't want to rock the boat. That doesn't explain why the people who are being blatantly exploited, under paid, passports held, all that sort of shit. why do they put up with it?

I guess it's still better then the alternative back home.

You'd think eastern europe has a culture of unionisation, maybe not.

Just came across this too which must play a part :
https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/extras/migrantchallenges.pdf

"Nearly one third of our respondents had found accommodation facilitated by their employer."

I have no idea how that works, if you're paid less in cash as some of your wage is rent...it could certainly mean you work for less than a local. But more importantly, how likely are you to unionise if it's your home on the line too?


----------



## no-no (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Seems union density is low. Click the country name on the right for stats...maybe a bit old but...
> 
> Trade Unions  / Poland / Countries / National Industrial Relations / Home - WORKER PARTICIPATION.eu
> 
> You sidestepped my question though..why would you imagine there would be no solidarity because they want to maintain the 'hard working immigrant' label? It seems like the most negative thing you could have imagined as being the reason.



It's not neccesarily negative, just a symptom of people not wanting to lose their jobs. I think it's understandable and it does make them attractive employees.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 20, 2018)

DWP sent Windrush pensioner £33,000 bill for disability benefits


----------



## 8115 (Apr 20, 2018)

'I thought I would die': Windrush man left homeless after brain surgery


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 20, 2018)

8115 said:


> 'I thought I would die': Windrush man left homeless after brain surgery


An awful case. It looks like this guy came in 1972, just after the rules changed. We clearly need some sort of amnesty *as well as * the official apology to cover cases like this one.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

no-no said:


> It's not neccesarily negative, just a symptom of people not wanting to lose their jobs. I think it's understandable and it does make them attractive employees.


You don't see people being too scared of losing work or being in the bosses bad books to join a union as a negative thing? 

That surely is the worst possible reason not to join a union isn't it?

It suggests a culture of fear and intimdationi in the workplace.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> You don't see people being too scared of losing work or being in the bosses bad books to join a union as a negative thing?
> 
> That surely is the worst possible reason not to join a union isn't it?
> 
> It suggests a culture of fear and intimidation in the workplace.



symptom m8. As in understandable, not a good thing. Could be where you come from the unions are even crapper than ours in the private sector, government lapdogs/bosses friends. Could be where you are from unionising gets some extremely unwelcome attention/reputation/blacklisting. Could be you just want to keep your head down cos you are a guest worker and you know damn well how precarious these things can be. I certainly don't see Notbonoever saying thats a good thing


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> symptom m8. As in understandable, not a good thing. Could be where you come from the unions are even crapper than ours in the private sector, government lapdogs/bosses friends. Could be where you are from unionising gets some extremely unwelcome attention/reputation/blacklisting. Could be you just want to keep your head down cos you are a guest worker and you know damn well how precarious these things can be. I certainly don't see Notbonoever saying thats a good thing



I know all of that Dotty, but it is a bad thing that people feel those ways about unionism isn't it?  Scared 'Lone' workers are vulnerable, easy targets, unionised workplaces/collectives have power.

Also, it's no no, not nobonoever.


----------



## no-no (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> You don't see people being too scared of losing work or being in the bosses bad books to join a union as a negative thing?
> 
> That surely is the worst possible reason not to join a union isn't it?
> 
> It suggests a culture of fear and intimdationi in the workplace.



It's def not a good thing, I thought you meant a negative judgement upon the workers who don't unionise.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

no-no said:


> It's def not a good thing, I thought you meant a negative judgement upon the workers who don't unionise.



Well I did but not that I am making that judgement. I just found it odd that that was the only reason slo-mo could think of as to why people weren't joining...it felt like he could have been being more generous tbh.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2018)

Another awful case. 



He also makes a bloody good point about the destroyed documentation. Why wasn't it digitalised?
We have a million miles of microfiche on just abut everything going back forever...mass scanning and archiving of documents isn't anything new either. FFS.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> it is a bad thing that people feel those ways about unionism isn't it? Scared 'Lone' workers are vulnerable, easy targets, unionised workplaces/collectives have power.



for sure, its all about dividing the workforce isn't it, shaving where they can. In agency based warehouse/light industry stuff round here there was no talk of union ever, comments from a few old boys at factories I did brief stints in. Even those were along the lines of 'when we used to have a union' etc.

But I don't think migrant workers union membership is a measuring stick to judge their potential for solidarity (nor do you obvs, i think its no-no and slomo n this one). I think thats a very clinical and crude way to separate things given the reasons we know for this and the decline of strong unions in general among people born here with the magic NI number assigned.  Nor indeed should we be actually measuring people up for solidarity. Thats not how it works. I don't share water with a thirsty person because I expect something, right.


----------



## agricola (Apr 20, 2018)

I see May has been banging on about how vital the Windrush generation were in rebuilding the country, how they are intrinsically British etc etc.  It is a terrible shame that such a display of shamelessness has so many rivals nowadays.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2018)

Brixton rally:

















In photos: Brixton comes out to support the Windrush Generation, Fri 20th April 2018


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Yes, I think I effectively consider immigration controls a necessary evil, but I should say that I'm entirely willing to change my mind. I can't say I have a clear view on immigration; it has changed somewhat post Brexit referendum because the message coming out of that seemed to be that people like me - who generally regard immigration if anything as positive at least in terms of direct consequences for me - *have been guilty of underestimating or ignoring the consequences it has for people who don't live in cosmopolitan London and who have less secure means of income*



Im not letting this pass. I live in same area.

Cosmopolitan Brixton is full of people who have less secure incomes.

As you should know Coldharbour Ward (which covers Brixton) is classified as deprived. Despite the gentrification of central Brixton.

The consquences that the less well off complain about arent immigrants but the social and ethnic cleansing of Brixton and London. Something you regularly take issue with on Brixton forum. 

Its what we argue about on Brixton forum.


----------



## oryx (Apr 20, 2018)

I wonder if the lack of unionisation is simply down to money, in that people in very low paid/insecure jobs cannot even afford to stump up a couple of quid a week in fees.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 20, 2018)

editor said:


> Brixton rally:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good photos but those are some utterly shit posters. Entirely expected of the SWP of course, but seriously...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 20, 2018)

oryx said:


> I wonder if the lack of unionisation is simply down to money, in that people in very low paid/insecure jobs cannot even afford to stump up a couple of quid a week in fees.



IME people in these sorts of jobs don't have any faith in a union being willing or able to help them with anything.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2018)

mauvais said:


> Good photos but those are some utterly shit posters. Entirely expected of the SWP of course, but seriously...



Thing is in Brixton the local Labour party won't touch controversial issues like this. So it is left to the Trots.

This was widely advertised on FB. And from what I saw a good cross section of Brixton turned out.

The only local Cllr present was Rachel ( see the photos,). She was expelled from the Labour group for not being Blairite enough, supporting Corbyn for leader ( they all supported Liz Kendell) and generally sticking up for her constituents. She is popular with locals. Unlike the Nu Labour lot.

Ive met a few SWP in Brixton and they are ok.

There is massive gulf between Lambeth labour ( run by Nu Labour in a particularly bullying nasty way) and local people. Leaving a hole filled by other groups like SWP.

In Brixton I'm not going to criticize them to much. Given the way the Lambeth labour party is.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Thing is in Brixton the local Labour party won't touch controversial issues like this. So it is left to the Trots.
> 
> This was widely advertised on FB. And from what I saw a good cross section of Brixton turned out.
> 
> ...


It fucks up everything it should be attempting to do - implies that the Windrush generation's continued presence in this country is open to discussion rather than an inalienable right, conflates them with migrants and refugees, then uses their plight as a vehicle for open borders.

I realise I've gone full Treelover - you should never go full Treelover - but it's bollocks, and would be far better publicity without their shit props.

Not that anyone needs to work at making Diane Abbott look bad either, but being pictured next to these things is free ammunition for her right wing opponents.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2018)

I read some posts here and wonder if I must be living in a different country. I'm a "local" and my partner is one of those European "migrants". I have Polish friends. As well as working with people from many different country and backgrounds. That's just normal life for me.

I really don't understand all this stuff about locals and immigrants.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2018)

mauvais said:


> It fucks up everything it should be attempting to do - implies that the Windrush generation's continued presence in this country is open to discussion rather than an inalienable right, conflates them with migrants and refugees, then uses their plight as a vehicle for open borders.
> 
> I realise I've gone full Treelover - you should never go full Treelover - but it's bollocks, and would be far better publicity without their shit props.
> 
> Not that anyone needs to work at making Diane Abbott look bad either, but being pictured next to these things is free ammunition for her right wing opponents.



But that is how local Brixton people see it from my view.

I posted earlier an anecdote. An Afro Carribbean friend of mine said that the way recent migrants are talked about ( the Poles he was referring to) was the same as the way that his Father's generation who came from Carribbean were blamed for taking jobs etc etc.

Black people I know in Brixton definitely "conflate" the issue.

Having experience of racism and anti immigration sentiment themselves they understand these issues. They aren't led by Trot groups.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> What about a Windrush immigrant who was involved in Brixton rioting, has spent time in prison, but also cared for his mum? Good immigrant or bad immigrant?
> 
> t.



FYI as I live in Brixton I know that the local Black British community refer to the 1981 Brixton riot as the Uprising. To distinguish it from criminal activity.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Good immigrant or bad immigrant?
> 
> You can't simply break it down like that.


 quite. We can't break it down like that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Im not letting this pass. I live in same area.
> 
> Cosmopolitan Brixton is full of people who have less secure incomes.
> 
> ...



Another point about 'immigration'. When it happens within countries, displacing local populations, somehow it's not even a thing that govt should be involved with. It's 'good' somehow, or at the very least 'organic'. Migration across borders as opposed to migration within borders is an essentially arbitrary distinction, one that relies on an appeal to some form of nationalism to have a meaningful difference.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 21, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Yes, I think I effectively consider immigration controls a necessary evil, but I should say that I'm entirely willing to change my mind. I can't say I have a clear view on immigration; it has changed somewhat post Brexit referendum because the message coming out of that seemed to be that people like me - who generally regard immigration if anything as positive at least in terms of direct consequences for me - have been guilty of underestimating or ignoring the consequences it has for people who don't live in cosmopolitan London and who have less secure means of income.
> 
> I'm open to being convinced that I should discard those concerns, and I'm also open to being convinced that an essentially open border is a feasible option in the near future and without wholesale political revolution.
> 
> ...


You are a Scot who lives in London, no? I'm Welsh and I live in London. We are immigrants (same for English people who have moved). It is not 'they'. It is 'we'.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I'll try and come back to some of the other points later.
> 
> But "solidarity" as a response, as I see it, just isn't going to change the fact that are gunboats in the med. I do agree that as a response it can help with things like how existing immigrants are recieved, and accepted, and so on. If the  theory is that it's part of a build up to some kind of revolution, which then changes the gunboats-in-the-med situation through non-parliamentary mechanisms - I simply don't see that as plausible. It's not going to happen. Of course, maybe I will be proven wrong. But because I don't believe that's going to ever happen, I resort to the unsatisfactory beaurocratic methods as a plausible means to make things less bad.



There is nothing stopping this government or a future one to start repealing legislation around immigration.

A lot of immigration laws and bureaucracy are recent.

To start with get rid of the "hostile environment". End obligation of landlords , employers and NHS to check people's immigration status.

Bring back free movement for all those who live in the Commonwealth. As they used to have. What the Windrush issue does bring up is this countries legacy of colonialism. I know an older migrant from Pakistan. Resents the way laws were changed to make it more difficult to come here for others after him from ex colonies.

Retain free movement for EU citizens.

Reinstate the funding for ships to save those in the Med. Which was cut by government ( May was Home Secretary at the time). Cut as saving people from drowning was seen to encourage migrants. Better that they drown to put off others in future was government view.

Close down detention centres. UK locks up more people than other countries for long periods of time. Most of whom are asylum seekers.

End deporting of adults who came here as children.Under international obligation UK has to accept children for asylum. Once they reach adulthood they are deported. Even though they have grown up here.


This would be a start. Its entirely feasible to do within existing bureaucracy of government.

Are you in agreement with that list? As a start.


----------



## billbond (Apr 21, 2018)

Retain free movement for EU citizens.

so ignore the Brexit vote, ok


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 21, 2018)

oryx said:


> I wonder if the lack of unionisation is simply down to money, in that people in very low paid/insecure jobs cannot even afford to stump up a couple of quid a week in fees.


Low pay and insecurity are hardly new and yet union membership has been declining for decades. No, the biggest reason why people don't join is what SF said - people don't have faith in unions to protect them. Something which is unfortunately all too true, partly due to the anti-union legislation the last 3-4 decades have brought partly because too many unions are themselves unwilling to fight for members. 

That said I do think (former) nationality influences peoples views on unionism. There's been an quite large influx of Indian and Chinese academics into the Australian HE sector over the last 10+ years, union density is higher for the former than the latter. Probably a number of reasons for that but it'd be very strange if the nature of unions in China didn't play a role in unions are viewed.


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> for sure, its all about dividing the workforce isn't it, shaving where they can. In agency based warehouse/light industry stuff round here there was no talk of union ever, comments from a few old boys at factories I did brief stints in. Even those were along the lines of 'when we used to have a union' etc.
> 
> But I don't think migrant workers union membership is a measuring stick to judge their potential for solidarity (nor do you obvs, i think its no-no and slomo n this one). I think thats a very clinical and crude way to separate things given the reasons we know for this and the decline of strong unions in general among people born here with the magic NI number assigned.  Nor indeed should we be actually measuring people up for solidarity. Thats not how it works. I don't share water with a thirsty person because I expect something, right.


It's not a judgement upon them. Union membership is on the decline all around anyway.

I do have a hard time with free movement though when it seems to supply vulnerable workers to industries who are more than willing to exploit the situation to the detriment of local workers wages.

And the consequences of turning away an eastern european worker would be no more than them still having the rest of the EU to look for work. it's not a moral issue for me.


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Im not letting this pass. I live in same area.
> 
> Cosmopolitan Brixton is full of people who have less secure incomes.
> 
> ...



Just the immigration of the middle classes then?

The consequences of working class inmigration are also wage suppression within their trades.

multiple sectors are reporting rising wages because of a post Brexit staff shortage.

It's beyond debate at this point that increased immigration suppresses wages for the poorest amongst us.

I dont understand why it's acceptable to complain about middle class people raising prices but somehow it's bad to complain about working class people supressing wages.

I think both are valid complaints. People have a fair expectation to be able to find housing and we'll paid work in the areas they've grown up in, where their friends and families live.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Apr 21, 2018)

All this talk of migrant workers and unions reminds me that I've been following some really interesting inspiring workplace struggles on facebook, many of which involve migrant workers - not specifically Eastern European migrant workers - though Gramsci has said there are Polish workers involved in the Ritzy/Picturehouse/Cineworld dispute.  For example:
 
and:


and outsourced cleaners, gardeners, security officers, receptionists, porters, post-room workers, and audiovisual workers with IWUGB have balloted for strike action at University of London - and are raising a strike fund.

I'm not disputing that migrant workers aren't influenced by their experience of unions in the country they migrated from (though this must work both ways - and there'll be some people who have previous experience of a very active union tradition), but barriers to unionisation, solidarity, and industrial action like low pay, insecure work, and vulnerabilities due to migration status, can be overcome.


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I read some posts here and wonder if I must be living in a different country. I'm a "local" and my partner is one of those European "migrants". I have Polish friends. As well as working with people from many different country and backgrounds. That's just normal life for me.
> 
> I really don't understand all this stuff about locals and
> 
> I really don't understand all this stuff about locals and immigrants.



It's not about having friends and partners from different countries.

It's about protecting wages. That might mean we don't allow in so many unskilled immigrants it doesn't mean we don't allow any in at all. It'll still be a multicultural nation.
Just one where people get a half decent wage...and one where there's a reason to invest in education again rather than subbing it out to EU nations.

British kids are at the bottom of European literacy tables but are expected to compete in a european job market.

You could present your post as :

I have middle class friends. I don't understand this gentrification argument.

But that would be using emotional rhetoric to sidestep the actual problem.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I read some posts here and wonder if I must be living in a different country.


If you live in London, especially inner London, to an extent you do live in a different country. NOT, I would stress, a worse country, in some ways a better country, but a different one.

I don't really want to get too much into London vs rUK because it's somewhat off topic, and most of the issues are covered elsewhere, but it is a very different place to much of the rest of the country.


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Another point about 'immigration'. When it happens within countries, displacing local populations, somehow it's not even a thing that govt should be involved with. It's 'good' somehow, or at the very least 'organic'. Migration across borders as opposed to migration within borders is an essentially arbitrary distinction, one that relies on an appeal to some form of nationalism to have a meaningful difference.



or a sense of geography and a desire not to have to work miles from home or have your wages suppressed by others who are willing to work abroad. I see it as pragmatic rather than nationalist.

Just as anti gentrification proponents arent anti middle class they're just concerned with being able to continue living in the area their lives are invested in.

You're right there is no difference between the gentrification and immigration arguments. Both are valid Imo


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> There is nothing stopping this government or a future one to start repealing legislation around immigration.
> 
> A lot of immigration laws and bureaucracy are recent.
> ....
> ...


Are you sure? Free movement with the Carribbean is one thing, free movement with the whole Commonwealth quite another. 

India has a population of 1.3 billion. Add in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri  Lanka and you get 1.7 billion.  The whole Commonwealth? 2.4 billion. 

That's a lot of people with the right to come to the UK, even if only 1% of them took it up, we would have real issues to overcome.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2018)

no-no said:


> It's not a judgement upon them.


then why mention it at all? just in passing?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> There is nothing stopping this government or a future one to start repealing legislation around immigration.
> 
> A lot of immigration laws and bureaucracy are recent.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of this list.

Freedom of movement for EU and Commonwealth citizens? Pre referendum I'd have said yes. Now I'm not so sure. I don't see it as having any negative consequences for me personally. It would be easy to say yes, but as I said earlier, maybe that is too easy for someone like me to say.

But  - even saying yes to those two groups - fact is, we'd still have an immigration policy and there would still be people getting caught in it. The line would just be drawn differently.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> The only local Cllr present was Rachel ( see the photos,).



Jacqui Dyer also spoke.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Im not letting this pass. I live in same area.
> 
> Cosmopolitan Brixton is full of people who have less secure incomes.
> 
> ...



Yes, gentrification is a big issue locally. I do not take issue with people complaining about the effects of that. 

It's an issue that runs in parallel with the immigration issue. There are all sorts of reasons immigration is seen a bit differently in London compared to the rest of the UK. It's a large part of what makes London London, of course. Doesn't mean that people don't ever complain about it though. The picture you present of no-one in London complaining about immigration is not accurate. I've seen it. The last example I can think of was some Polish builders telling me they are thinking of going back to Poland now. I thought they were going to say it was because of Brexit. But it was because there are "too many imigrants" in London now.


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> then why mention it at all? just in passing?



because it's one of the factors that contributes to wage supression. the solution could be to try to increase migrant union membership or to restrict immigration with a points based system or a mix of the two.

We should be careful not to create harmful stereotypes, I get that but it's not something I'm wortied about on this forum. People here are capable of having the conversation.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2018)

no-no said:


> Scabs? certainly lacking in working class solidarity.





no-no said:


> It's not a judgement upon them.


?


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> ?



I hate the term scab. I was asking if those who use it would apply it to immigrants.

it's possible to acknowledge that a strike breaker or immigrant working in an over supplied trade is detrimental to others without placing an ethical judgement upon them.

It's safe to assume both have families to feed etc...they can't be blamed for trying to find work.

it lacks solidarity I suppose but that's not a standard I would hold them to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 21, 2018)

no-no said:


> or a sense of geography and a desire not to have to work miles from home or have your wages suppressed by others who are willing to work abroad. I see it as pragmatic rather than nationalist.
> 
> Just as anti gentrification proponents arent anti middle class they're just concerned with being able to continue living in the area their lives are invested in.
> 
> You're right there is no difference between the gentrification and immigration arguments. Both are valid Imo



Same kinds of arguments apply. Just as immigrants don't suppress wages, employers do, immigrants don't put rents up, landlords do. There is a problem in the UK and particularly London that urban regeneration turns into gentrification due to the patterns of property ownership. And the exploiters - ie the landlords/employers - often get a free pass, while those they are exploiting get the blame.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 21, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Same kinds of arguments apply. Just as immigrants don't suppress wages, employers do, immigrants don't put rents up, landlords do. There is a problem in the UK and particularly London that urban regeneration turns into gentrification due to the patterns of property ownership. And the exploiters - ie the landlords/employers - often get a free pass, while those they are exploiting get the blame.


Well yes and no.Rents and wages are ultimately set by the market (or by minimum wage legislation) Of course there are 'good' employers and 'good' landlords who choose to pay more or charge less than the market rate, but those rates are still influenced by the market rate.

If the market rate for a shop assistant is £8 an hour, a 'good' employer might choose to pay £10 an hour. He might choose to take a little less profit in return for staff loyalty , and possibly feeling a little better about himself.

But if he tried to pay £16 he would probably find himself out of business because his labour costs would be double his competitors, and few businesses can operate like that in a competitive market. So the 'good' as well as the 'bad' employer are still ultimately ruled by the market.


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Same kinds of arguments apply. Just as immigrants don't suppress wages, employers do, immigrants don't put rents up, landlords do. There is a problem in the UK and particularly London that urban regeneration turns into gentrification due to the patterns of property ownership. And the exploiters - ie the landlords/employers - often get a free pass, while those they are exploiting get the blame.



It's a bit of both, employers don't dictate the wage. As we've seen, when there's a worker shortfall they have to pay more, they don't have the choice to suppress wages anymore. The post brexit effect has been more beneficial to workers in those sectors them than any minimum wage policy.

The employers aren't getting a free pass at all, they're going to be forced to pay more for their workers.....which would hopefully approach a figure that can actually cover the bills.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2018)

impressive backflips here.


no-no said:


> it lacks solidarity I suppose but that's not a standard I would hold them to.





no-no said:


> it's not a moral issue for me.





heh


no-no said:


> I hate the term scab.





why is that? have you had it ringing in your ears in the past?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> If you live in London, especially inner London, to an extent you do live in a different country. NOT, I would stress, a worse country, in some ways a better country, but a different one.
> 
> I don't really want to get too much into London vs rUK because it's somewhat off topic, and most of the issues are covered elsewhere, but it is a very different place to much of the rest of the country.



So why are you bringing it up?

Are you trying to say my views aren't valid?


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> impressive backflips here.
> 
> heh
> 
> why is that? have you had it ringing in your ears in the past?



No, it's not a moral issue for me. I don't think it's morally wrong to enforce a border policy.

I also don't think it's morally  wrong for immigrants or strike breakers to work where they need to even if their actions are detrimental to others.

And no, i've never crossed a picket line. I wouldn't ever want to but I'm not so sanctimonious as to think my life couldn't end up in a situation where I might need to.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2018)

but its a standard which you choose when to hold people to and when not to? thats a moral, ethical decision- regardless of how you phrase it or what you decide. So 'its not a moral decision for me' isn't true is it? It reads more like you wish to say 'this is the choice of logic and politics, not the heart' by using the word 'moral'. Thus elevating your arguments to a space of pure reason, and any holding of principle to be sanctimony. Its a pretty shit way to bridge the gap between this


no-no said:


> Scabs? certainly lacking in working class solidarity.



and this


no-no said:


> It's not a judgement upon them


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> but its a standard which you choose when to hold people to and when not to? thats a moral, ethical decision- regardless of how you phrase it or what you decide. So 'its not a moral decision for me' isn't true is it? It reads more like you wish to say 'this is the choice of logic and politics, not the heart' by using the word 'moral'. Thus elevating your arguments to a space of pure reason, and any holding of principle to be sanctimony. Its a pretty shit way to bridge the gap between this
> 
> 
> and this



I don't see a lack of solidarity as necessarily being wrong. Im sure people here do though which is why i mentioned it. There is no gap to bridge for me.

I place no personal judgement on strike breakers or immigrants.

But their actions do collectively cause problems.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> So why are you bringing it up?
> 
> Are you trying to say my views aren't valid?


No, absolutely 100% not 

I was just pointing out that London is very different to rUK, as I'm sure you know. So we obviously come from very different perspectives.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> No, absolutely 100% not
> 
> I was just pointing out that London is very different to rUK, as I'm sure you know. So we obviously come from very different perspectives.



And what are the differences?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 21, 2018)

rUK?


----------



## mauvais (Apr 21, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> rUK?


Rest of UK.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> And what are the differences?


There's loads of stuff online about this. It would totally take the thread off topic .


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 21, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> rUK?


Sorry, nerdy slang 

Like Mauvis says, rest of the UK


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 21, 2018)

no-no said:


> It's a bit of both, employers don't dictate the wage. As we've seen, when there's a worker shortfall they have to pay more, they don't have the choice to suppress wages anymore. The post brexit effect has been more beneficial to workers in those sectors them than any minimum wage policy.
> 
> The employers aren't getting a free pass at all, they're going to be forced to pay more for their workers.....which would hopefully approach a figure that can actually cover the bills.


Can you give stats for this post-brexit effect? Those stats will figure in the rise in inflation that came just after Brexit as well, natch.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 21, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Well yes and no.Rents and wages are ultimately set by the market (or by minimum wage legislation) Of course there are 'good' employers and 'good' landlords who choose to pay more or charge less than the market rate, but those rates are still influenced by the market rate.


'market rate'. 

How is that determined? When you are talking about a limited, essential resource like housing, which is owned by some people and not others, 'the market' is an entirely rigged affair. There is nothing 'natural' or 'organic' about a market rate - it reflects the patterns of exploitation that the particular society has set up wrt access to limited, essential resources.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> There's loads of stuff online about this. It would totally take the thread off topic .



You started this. Not me.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> You started this. Not me.


Oh FFS. What's your problem, my friend?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Oh FFS. What's your problem, my friend?



You make a comment directed at me and will not clarify it.

Im not making a problem. You are.


----------



## extra dry (Apr 21, 2018)

this popped up on my news page.   
Gran's heartbreak as she's banned from UK after living here for 59 years
 pop up, it is from the mirror


----------



## klang (Apr 21, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Of course there are 'good' employers and 'good' landlords who choose to pay more or charge less than the market rate


so the ones exploiting you a bit less within a totally rigged 'market' are the good'uns.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 21, 2018)

According to BBC news some documents have been found at Kew may help. Even though the boarding cards have been destroyed it seems Kew have the pasenger lists.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> You make a comment directed at me and will not clarify it.
> 
> Im not making a problem. You are.




Edit: can't be arsed.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Apr 21, 2018)

no-no said:


> I don't see a lack of solidarity as necessarily being wrong. Im sure people here do though which is why i mentioned it. There is no gap to bridge for me.
> 
> I place no personal judgement on strike breakers or immigrants.
> 
> But their actions do collectively cause problems.


So you keep putting "strike breaker" and "immigrant" in the same sentence as if they are morally equivalent but that's ok because unlike most of the rest of us who would judge scabs for actively breaking solidarity you don't see anything wrong with scabbing??  That's a very strange argument.


----------



## GarveyLives (Apr 21, 2018)

> But what is your opinion? Posting up links is ok once in a while but you aren't engaging with the thread.



Sometimes ...







... a picture (or even a cartoon) paints a thousand words.​


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you give stats for this post-brexit effect? Those stats will figure in the rise in inflation that came just after Brexit as well, natch.



News outlets of differing persuasions reporting the same story.

Subscribe to read
Hospitality industry wages rise over 10% thanks to Brexit
Shortage of EU workers is pushing up salaries
Shortage of factory workers starts to push up pay rates
UK employers raise pay as Brexit skills shortage bites - recruiters


----------



## no-no (Apr 21, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> So you keep putting "strike breaker" and "immigrant" in the same sentence as if they are morally equivalent but that's ok because unlike most of the rest of us who would judge scabs for actively breaking solidarity you don't see anything wrong with scabbing??  That's a very strange argument.



"you don't see anything wrong with scabbing??"

No, I just don't judge people and label them scabs for crossing a picket line because I have no idea what reasons they might have to do that.

I don't see much difference between scabbing and moving to another country to work in an already over supplied trade. I don't judge the immigrants personally though even though their actions collectively cause problems in exactly the same was that i don't blame drivers for polluting the air.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 21, 2018)

no-no said:


> News outlets of differing persuasions reporting the same story.
> 
> Subscribe to read
> Hospitality industry wages rise over 10% thanks to Brexit
> ...


Not saying this won't happen as an effect of Brexit, but that is very flimsy evidence that it is happening now, especially as it shows wages still rising below inflation, and the rates of wage increases only being remarkable in the context of the last 2-3 years: plenty of times pre-Brexit when wages were rising more quickly. The special austerity-based conditions in the immediate run-up to Brexit were cutting wages across the board. Where wages are on average rising below inflation, which was the case in 2017, that means that wages are falling. So in the first year after the Brexit vote, wages fell.


----------



## agricola (Apr 21, 2018)

Not been watching the BBC all day, but at the moment they are reporting that thousands of passenger lists have been found at the National Archives.  I can only hope these are "new" documents and not the pre-1960 passenger lists, otherwise their definition of "found" is something that needs to change.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Reinstate the funding for ships to save those in the Med. Which was cut by government ( May was Home Secretary at the time). Cut as saving people from drowning was seen to encourage migrants. Better that they drown to put off others in future was government view.


More than this we need to ask why are people in unseaworthy boats in the first place? Because EU confiscate vessels bringing migrants. Why are people trying to come to EU /UK by sea - because they are being prevented from travelling safely by train or air.

People who are fleeing war should be able to come here as refugees - as I think the UK has officially/legally agreed to do - didn't the UK undertook to take thousands of syrian refugees?

What is needed to to end ridulous rules that stop them being able to travel here legally and safely, why can't they just get on a plane/legal boat and claim asylum when they land? convoluted rules prevent them - so our govt is in the business of allowing people traffickers to sell expensive, unsafe boat journeys. Our govt is encouraging people trafficking.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2018)

no-no said:


> Just the immigration of the middle classes then?
> 
> The consequences of working class inmigration are also wage suppression within their trades.
> 
> ...



Working class immigrants don't suppress wages employers do.

I was at local election hustings today in Brixton. The topic for the hustings was housing. The main parties were present except Tories. Housing is big issue in London. Lack of truly affordable housing. No one in meeting once brought up immigration as one of the causes of this.

People were complaining about property developers building houses at prices that weren't affordable and wriggling out of commitments to affordable housing.

Also complaining that local Council wasn't doing enough to build social housing or use what powers it has to remedy lack of decent affordable housing.

It was a lively meeting with plenty of disagreement. No one blaming immigrants at any point.

And no one blaming middle class immigrants as you term them.

Gentrification issues and immigration issue aren't comparable.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 22, 2018)

Anyway back to the Windrush generation. The caribbean immigrants and their families are British with every right to live here. That was accepted years ago.

A lot of British people couldn't prove who they are to the satisfaction of immigration officers. Lots of people don't drive or have passports, particularly low paid people who can't afford to travel. Who keeps every wage slip? Have you checked that all your NI contributions from your whole working life? I never have,  Most of us will never have to prove who we are and our parliament even voted against introducing an identity card scheme.

British people are not compelled by law to prove who they are.

When people came here on the Windrush and in the 60s and 70s standard of paperwork and proof were different than now. Paperwork gets lost. Even officially destroyed.

It's not only wrong and rascist, it's an outrage against a long standing British tradition (well since 1952 anyway.)	Identity cards in Britain: past experience and policy implications


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2018)

no-no said:


> No, I just don't judge people and label them scabs for crossing a picket line....
> 
> I don't see much difference between scabbing and moving to another country to work in an already over supplied trade.



You're a fucking idiot, then.


----------



## GarveyLives (Apr 22, 2018)

> British people are not compelled by law to prove who they are.



It appears that this is does not apply if you are _not_ a member of the ethnic majority:

May's immigration policy seen as 'almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany' (click for more)

​


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 22, 2018)

GarveyLives said:


> It appears that this is does not apply if you are _not_ a member of the ethnic majority:


Yes I doubt that any of the children born to white middleclass colonial parents in far flung bits of the empire /commonwealth will have this problem.
I wonder how the uk's hostile regime has treated the white migrants from places like south africa/australia/canada.  I've heard no stories of them being refused treatment/access/benefits.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 22, 2018)

That the "hostile environment" led to so many British citizens being treated as guilty of a crime based on their ancestry is definitively racist.

Labour and the left have been ceaselessly hauled over the coals for years in relation to anti semitism.

By those standards The Conservative Party should now be the subject of relentless interrogation, formal or otherwise, regarding institutional racism.  

If the likes of "News" night and the national press don't now have many interviews, front pages, editorials and columns devoted to the matter, the prime reason for that would be racism. Obviously, most of the people involved are privileged and white. 

Such a debate would inevitably trigger racists and their apologists into paroxysms about "witch hunts" and PC Gone Mad (tm). Bring it on. They are likely to start moaning like fuck when the compensation issue arises anyway. 

Has any aspect of the billionaire / establishment press or the likes of BBC "news" even mentioned the "r" word yet?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> Yes I doubt that any of the children born to white middleclass colonial parents in far flung bits of the empire /commonwealth will have this problem.
> I wonder how the uk's hostile regime has treated the white migrants from places like south africa/australia/canada.  I've heard no stories of them being refused treatment/access/benefits.



As I posted earlier this hostile environment of Mays has affected a New Zealand friend mine ( white). Retired, worked here for years suddenly got letter asking about his right to be here. His MP sorted it out.

The hostile environment policy put in place by May has caused this. I was chatting to someone in Brixton today about this. A lot of the people who came here from Carribbean even in seventies didn't really "regularise" there position here. It was just that no one in authority really questioned there immigration status then. A lot of them never applied for British citizenship. They came here got a job and kept there heads down.

I've known plenty of visa overstayers/ "illegal" immigrants in London. It's getting harder with the introduction of "hostile environment". Not totally impossible yet but getting there.

What this children of Windrush issue does do is highlight the arbitrary nature of immigration controls. And the nasty effects of them.

There was a Columbian security guard I knew. He suddenly wasn't at the office. He was married here and lived here. Went back to Columbia for a visit. On way back he was stopped from boarding plane back. Took him three months of arguing to get back here to UK. He told me about it when he came back to his old job.

These kinds of things go on all the time. It's just that it does not effect most of us. A lot of immigration policy is about hounding people. It's not about "unintended" consequences or over zealous officials. This is how it's meant to work.

Unfortunately for this government the Windrush issue broke through to mainstream press. So now May and those who are anti migrants are now falling over themselves to say they of course support Windrush children staying here. That doesn't mean they are going to change immigration policy. Get rid of "hostile environment" for any other groups like South Americans. I see this in some posts here.

I would have thought this would affect people from Pakistan and Bangladesh as they also came here postwar. Haven't heard any cases about them.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Apr 22, 2018)

no-no said:


> "you don't see anything wrong with scabbing??"
> 
> No, I just don't judge people and label them scabs for crossing a picket line because I have no idea what reasons they might have to do that.
> 
> I don't see much difference between scabbing and moving to another country to work in an already over supplied trade. I don't judge the immigrants personally though even though their actions collectively cause problems in exactly the same was that i don't blame drivers for polluting the air.


Its the difference between doing something for short term gain which actively breaks organised solidarity with clear boundaries (ie scabs crossing a picket line), and moving country as a way of just getting on with your life the best you can whilst perhaps being used by capital in aggregate to drive down wages (though this is not always the case - capitalists also use immigration to expand industries).  Capital pits many sections of the working class against each other in this way through immigration and through other mechanisms and its nonsense to blame workers for that (or do you also think uber drivers are the same as strike breakers against taxi drivers for example, or warehouse workers at amazon are the cause of Toys R Us shop assistants losing their jobs).  Our only defence against this is solidarity - which takes effort to build - which is why people crossing a picket line and breaking a strike are treated with disdain and anger.  And why you're on such dodgy ground comparing immigrants to strike breakers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 22, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> These kinds of things go on all the time. It's just that it does not effect most of us. A lot of immigration policy is about hounding people. It's not about "unintended" consequences or over zealous officials. This is how it's meant to work.


This bears repeating often and loudly.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 22, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I would have thought this would affect people from Pakistan and Bangladesh as they also came here postwar. Haven't heard any cases about them.


According to this BBC piece, the two groups most affected are Indians and Jamaicans, but it dosent really say why
Who are the Windrush generation?

Perhaps Pakistani and Bangladeshi children were more likely to have their own passport. I'm guessing now.

I do think the people ultimately responsible have hardly been mentioned, BTW. And that this the person or persons who decided not to keep records of everyone in the country when ILR was granted.  Being very old or dead doesn't automatically absolve you of everything you've ever done, and it ought to have been possible to see what trouble they were saving up for the future, even from the perspective of 1971.


----------



## agricola (Apr 22, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> Yes I doubt that any of the children born to white middleclass colonial parents in far flung bits of the empire /commonwealth will have this problem.
> I wonder how the uk's hostile regime has treated the white migrants from places like south africa/australia/canada.  I've heard no stories of them being refused treatment/access/benefits.



They have been kicking / trying to kick them out though - this lady for instance.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 22, 2018)

I really do believe there should be an upper age limit above which we don't deport except in the most extreme circumstances. 80?


----------



## klang (Apr 22, 2018)

18.
and children are obviously safe whatever their circumstances.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 22, 2018)

littleseb said:


> 18.
> and children are obviously safe whatever their circumstances.


I admire you sentiment but I really don't think it's realistic.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2018)

I was in Brixton today chatting to shopkeeper I know. He was born and grew up in Brixton. His parents came from Carribbean.

He told me one of his relatives who came here in 1968 had immigration troubles couple of years ago. He came here in 68 and has worked in UK since then. Going back to Carribbean every few years to see relatives. He kept his Carribbean passport. Never tried to get UK one. For years this never was a problem. Then couple of years back ( when hostile environment came in) he went to Carribbean. Came back to UK and for first time interrogated by immigration officials at airport. After several hours they let him in. He was starting a new job. The business he was going to work for asked for his papers to prove he could work here. The fact that he had worked here for years didn't count. They said sorry but they couldn't take him on until he got them.

He had to get a lot of legal advice and pay for a identification card. This cost him three grand. Whilst he was sorting this out he couldn't work. He really struggled.

He is back at work now.

My friend said the Tory party is institutionally racist. Whatever May may say now.

Also racist from his perspective are those who are for immigration controls but claim they are not racist.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 22, 2018)




----------



## patman post (Apr 22, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> ".......My friend said the Tory party is institutionally racist. Whatever May may say now.
> 
> Also racist from his perspective are those who are for immigration controls but claim they are not racist.


Despite improvements over recent years, there are still significant numbers of people with racist feelings and opinions across the whole of British society. The Conservatives recently got blamed for the Windrush scandal by a Labour Party desperate to move the spotlight off the activities of its own anti-Semitic members. That’s why incompetent and racist middle order functionaries and other members of the establishment have been able to operate and judge as the whim takes them...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2018)

patman post said:


> Despite improvements over recent years, there are still significant numbers of people with racist feelings and opinions across the whole of British society. The Conservatives recently got blamed for the Windrush scandal by a Labour Party desperate to move the spotlight off the activities of its own anti-Semitic members. That’s why incompetent and racist middle order functionaries and other members of the establishment have been able to operate and judge as the whim takes them...



No. You haven't read my post correctly. As I live in Brixton I posted up anecdote from conversation I had today with Black British guy I know. His views on the Tory party being institutionally racist and those who oppose immigration as being racist has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Its from his own experience of living in this country.

We had a long chat. Ive been in Brixton for years. Said to him I remember when I first came to London there was still a lot of racist attitudes in London.

He told me in 70s growing up in London there were placed you did not go if u were Black. As you would beaten up.

Things seemed to improve.

He sees Brexit vote as backward step. This country was getting more tolerant. Now , and I agree with him, it's acceptable to be "concerned" about immigration now.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2018)

patman post said:


> Despite improvements over recent years, there are still significant numbers of people with racist feelings and opinions across the whole of British society. The Conservatives recently got blamed for the Windrush scandal by a Labour Party desperate to move the spotlight off the activities of its own anti-Semitic members. That’s why incompetent and racist middle order functionaries and other members of the establishment have been able to operate and judge as the whim takes them...



As local elections are coming up in Brixton I was at a election husting on Saturday. Brixton/ Lambeth still has a black population who are mainly working class.

The Labour party is the main party in the area. The public at husting were giving the ( right wing anti Corbyn) Labour cllrs a hard time. One said that the Lambeth council had "worked hard to disenfranchise Black and Ethnic communities".

Public were criticising local Labour party for not doing enough on housing for example.

The issue of supposed anti semitism never arose. Its not an issue amongst the mainly Black working class communities I live with.

The Windrush issue affects the less well off communities directly. As I tried to show in my posts. Its has real drastic effects on ordinary mainly black people lives.

The anti semitism issue comes across as middle class media debate. Not relevant to lives of the working class.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2018)

patman post said:


> Despite improvements over recent years, there are still significant numbers of people with racist feelings and opinions across the whole of British society. The Conservatives recently got blamed for the Windrush scandal by a Labour Party desperate to move the spotlight off the activities of its own anti-Semitic members. That’s why incompetent and racist middle order functionaries and other members of the establishment have been able to operate and judge as the whim takes them...



To add. Will the media be asking for Tory party to look at its institutionally racist attitudes? At how it will root them out?


----------



## patman post (Apr 23, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> As local elections are coming up in Brixton I was at a election husting on Saturday. Brixton/ Lambeth still has a black population who are mainly working class.
> 
> The Labour party is the main party in the area. The public at husting were giving the ( right wing anti Corbyn) Labour cllrs a hard time. One said that the Lambeth council had "worked hard to disenfranchise Black and Ethnic communities".
> 
> ...


Just trying to point out that Brixton is not the centre of the universe, and though anti-semitism doesn’t affect your local population the perception is hurting Labour more widely. That’s why Labour is pushing hard on the the landing cards issue...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2018)

patman post said:


> Just trying to point out that Brixton is not the centre of the universe, and though anti-semitism doesn’t affect your local population the perception is hurting Labour more widely. That’s why Labour is pushing hard on the the landing cards issue...



Its the centre of the universe for this Windrush issue. Why Brixton posters like me have been posting up on this thread.

In London the only people I know who go on about anti semitism are anti Corbyn members of the Labour party.

Its an insult to argue that some politicians in Labour party are concerned about Windrush because they want to deflect attention from alleged anti semitism.

Its offensive.

There are people from Windrush generation bring refused treatment on NHS, being as I've pointed out refused right to work, in danger deportation and your trying to drag so called anti semitism into this?


----------



## agricola (Apr 23, 2018)

patman post said:


> Just trying to point out that Brixton is not the centre of the universe, and though anti-semitism doesn’t affect your local population the perception is hurting Labour more widely. That’s why Labour is pushing hard on the the landing cards issue...



Not really - to say that "_Labour is pushing hard on the landing cards issue_" because of anti-semitism is to miss the point considerably.  

This is an outrage that even the Tory papers have found impossible to defend - given that it disproportionately affects the law-abiding, the people who worked hard and got on, people who like (and in at least one case played at county level) cricket etc and who are being subjected to indefensible treatment as as result.  That the current Labour leadership have picked up on it can be explained simply by the fact that Lammy, Corbyn, Abbott (especially) and McDonnell all had the sense to oppose this at the time.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 23, 2018)

patman post said:


> Just trying to point out that Brixton is not the centre of the universe, and though anti-semitism doesn’t affect your local population the perception is hurting Labour more widely. That’s why Labour is pushing hard on the the landing cards issue...


 Nonsense. That you are trying to conflate the two says a lot about you tbh. We are talking about people who can't prove when they arrived despite having decades full of health, NI, tax records...those landing cards would prove their cases.


----------



## bimble (Apr 23, 2018)

"The home secretary has insisted that the problem was merely that officials lost sight of people in their concern for implementing the policy."

(from the guardians story on this today).


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 23, 2018)

A take on this from Brendan O'Neill from Spiked..

The Windrush fallout has shattered every Remainer prejudice


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 23, 2018)

Good grief, do you ever stop banging the Brexit drum?


----------



## teqniq (Apr 23, 2018)

No shit Sherlock

EXCLUSIVE: Home Office agencies at heart of Windrush scandal are rife with discrimination and harassment, employees say


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 23, 2018)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbcjhMZWsAAaHYd.jpg


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 23, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Good grief, do you ever stop banging the Brexit drum?


Was that aimed at me?

It's actually Brendan O'Neill that is banging the Brexit drum but I thought it was an interesting take on the situation, because it gives lie to many remainer predjudices about Brexiteers as racists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 23, 2018)

patman post said:


> Just trying to point out that Brixton is not the centre of the universe, and though anti-semitism doesn’t affect your local population the perception is hurting Labour more widely. That’s why Labour is pushing hard on the the landing cards issue...


the earth isn't the centre of the universe, you know, yet you seem to focus your concerns on happenings in the backwoods not only of the universe but also of the galaxy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 23, 2018)

Relavant article by Kenan over the weekend: ELITE RACISM AND THE WORKING CLASS AS ALIBI

"The ‘white working class’. It has become, in recent years, almost a synonym for ‘racist’. The belief that racism is a working-class problem, and that many in the white working class voted for Brexit for racist reasons, has become widely accepted among liberals (and not just among liberals).

So, where does the Windrush scandal fit into this narrative? After all, it’s not the white working class that promised to create a ‘hostile environment’ or refused Britons who had been here for decades the right to use the NHS or ripped up their landing cards. Polls show, to the contrary, that most people are shocked by the unfairness and cruelty of the government’s policy."

"Many politicians, on the other hand, may pay lip service to liberal values, but too often care little for fairness or equity, whether for migrants or for the working class. Until the public pressure got too great, Theresa May and Amber Rudd were happy to ignore the evidence of gross injustice towards the Windrush generation. That is not an aberration. That is how the elite has always acted. That is how the system has always worked."


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 23, 2018)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbcjhMZWsAAaHYd.jpg


----------



## killer b (Apr 23, 2018)

that was shit when you posted it 4 posts ago too.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 23, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> A take on this from Brendan O'Neill from Spiked..
> 
> The Windrush fallout has shattered every Remainer prejudice




You're quoting Spiked as if its *any* kind of reputable source?  

Even though so many articles published in it are froth-foamingly insane? And as often as not, conspiracy theory-laden bollocks? 

Get on your bike and ride. Spiked and its conspiracy theorists, as well as those who are hooked in by them, are twats.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 23, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Relavant article by Kenan over the weekend: ELITE RACISM AND THE WORKING CLASS AS ALIBI
> 
> "The ‘white working class’. It has become, in recent years, almost a synonym for ‘racist’. The belief that racism is a working-class problem, and that many in the white working class voted for Brexit for racist reasons, has become widely accepted among liberals (and not just among liberals).
> 
> ...




That Malik article was definitely worth a re-read, excellent. I think the blog version you link to is a slightly extended (?) version of what was in the Observer last week** -- I find that his columns there are consistently good/worth reading generally 

**ETA : sorry that was a mistake  -- the Sunday just gone was when I read the Obs version, not last week.


----------



## no-no (Apr 23, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Its the difference between doing something for short term gain which actively breaks organised solidarity with clear boundaries (ie scabs crossing a picket line), and moving country as a way of just getting on with your life the best you can whilst perhaps being used by capital in aggregate to drive down wages (though this is not always the case - capitalists also use immigration to expand industries).  Capital pits many sections of the working class against each other in this way through immigration and through other mechanisms and its nonsense to blame workers for that (or do you also think uber drivers are the same as strike breakers against taxi drivers for example, or warehouse workers at amazon are the cause of Toys R Us shop assistants losing their jobs).  Our only defence against this is solidarity - which takes effort to build - which is why people crossing a picket line and breaking a strike are treated with disdain and anger.  And why you're on such dodgy ground comparing immigrants to strike breakers.



"perhaps being used by capital in aggregate to drive down wages (though this is not always the case - capitalists also use immigration to expand industries)"

Perhaps? in some trades, that's a definite. Yes, we should welcome immigrants in expanding trades, that's how a points based system would work. The differences you describe are technical. The effects are the same.

The other examples you've given where capital pits workers against each other are all cases where it's british citizens against each other. Theyr'e competing on fair terms, a black cab driver can sign up with uber if he wants to. 

The UK is at the bottom of the literacy tables yet our youth are expected to compete in a european sized job market. We're also well known for not speaking other languages, our working classes are not well equipped to go and get a job on the continent. Sure, we should fix both those issues but it doesn't seem to be happening and in the meantime people cannot compete, are written off as lazy, don't want to do these jobs....

Solidarity would be great but hows that working out?  Eastern european immigrants are half as likely to be in a union, do you honestly see them bucking the general trend of a decline in unionisation? While we're failing to get immigrants to join unions people are having their livlihoods taken away and they're starting to turn to the right and far right for support because the left is fixed on it's ideals of solidarity.

In the case of free movement, solidarity is not our only defence. Nations exist and nations are perfectly entitled to enforce border restrictions if the populace votes to protect wages. It's not the end of the world, it's not evil, it's just a points based immigration system. Some people will just have to go and work elsewhere. I'd like to have free movement rights with the US but i don't, no big deal.

I don't know why this is the hill we're choosing to die on, while the right wing parties across europe are exploiting the situation and no doubt planning on implementing far more restrictive immigration policies than a mere points based policy.

To take your argument to it's logical conclusion, should we have worldwide solidarity and allow free movement from anywhere on the planet? They'd all join a union right? so it would all work out ok wouldn't it. How do you really think that'd play out?


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 23, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> I find that his columns there are consistently good/worth reading generally



Likewise, I find Brendan O'Neill's columns on Spiked interesting


----------



## killer b (Apr 23, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> You're quoting Spiked as if its *any* kind of reputable source?
> 
> Even though so many articles published in it are froth-foamingly insane? And as often as not, conspiracy theory-laden bollocks?
> 
> Get on your bike and ride. Spiked and its conspiracy theorists, as well as those who are hooked in by them, are twats.





William of Walworth said:


> That Malik article was definitely worth a re-read, excellent. I think the blog version you link to is a slightly extended (?) version of what was in the Observer last week -- I find that his columns there are consistently good/worth reading generally



You know Malik has written for Spiked yeah? 

(I don't disagree with either of these posts fwiw, but they seemed odd bedfellows considering Malik's roots in the RCP and ongoing - if increasingly fading - links with the post-RCP gang)


----------



## no-no (Apr 23, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not saying this won't happen as an effect of Brexit, but that is very flimsy evidence that it is happening now, especially as it shows wages still rising below inflation, and the rates of wage increases only being remarkable in the context of the last 2-3 years: plenty of times pre-Brexit when wages were rising more quickly. The special austerity-based conditions in the immediate run-up to Brexit were cutting wages across the board. Where wages are on average rising below inflation, which was the case in 2017, that means that wages are falling. So in the first year after the Brexit vote, wages fell.



of course there are plenty of other things that play into ti but when you have recruitment peopel in the industry telling you they're having to increase wages due to a shortfall in staff I think it's fair to say the surplus staff were previously having a supressive effect on wages.

The gain may not be as large as it appears because it's masked by inflation, we don't know yet. We do know that surplus labour does affect wages, which is in line with what we know about supply/demand.

Another facet to this is that some EU workers have been negotiating higher salaries for themselves in light of their now uncertain status, which would also contribute to wage increases all around.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 23, 2018)

no-no said:


> The gain may not be as large as it appears because it's masked by inflation, we don't know yet. .


This is muddled thinking. It's meaningless to talk about wage rises without adjusting for inflation, and, adjusted for inflation, wages on average went down last  year, again, despite small growth in the economy. So the long-term trend of decline in wages as a percentage of GDP, which started in the 1970s, continues. 

One of the things that happened soon after the brexit vote was a significant devaluation of the pound against a range of currencies. Whether that was caused by the vote or not, we can argue, but it doesn't matter what caused it, devaluation of any kind is an inflation pressure. So you have inflation rising due to a weak pound and wage demands rising as a response. There is always an argument from the right that inflation is caused by wage demands, but the evidence is normally the other way around - that rising inflation stimulates greater wage demands. That is certainly what the evidence points to here.


----------



## no-no (Apr 23, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is muddled thinking. It's meaningless to talk about wage rises without adjusting for inflation, and, adjusted for inflation, wages on average went down last  year, again, despite small growth in the economy. So the long-term trend of decline in wages as a percentage of GDP, which started in the 1970s, continues.
> 
> One of the things that happened soon after the brexit vote was a significant devaluation of the pound against a range of currencies. Whether that was caused by the vote or not, we can argue, but it doesn't matter what caused it, devaluation of any kind is an inflation pressure. So you have inflation rising due to a weak pound and wage demands rising as a response. There is always an argument from the right that inflation is caused by wage demands, but the evidence is normally the other way around - that rising inflation stimulates greater wage demands. That is certainly what the evidence points to here.



Possibly, I don't pretend not to be muddled by economics.

I'm not suggesting that people are in a better state now than they were before brexit when inflation is taken into account. I'm just saying that immigration has suppressed wages.

The value of the pound may rise again or it may not but a surplus of anything leads to a reduction in value of that thing.


----------



## patman post (Apr 23, 2018)

agricola said:


> Not really - to say that "_Labour is pushing hard on the landing cards issue_" because of anti-semitism is to miss the point considerably.
> 
> This is an outrage that even the Tory papers have found impossible to defend - given that it disproportionately affects the law-abiding, the people who worked hard and got on, people who like (and in at least one case played at county level) cricket etc and who are being subjected to indefensible treatment as as result.  That the current Labour leadership have picked up on it can be explained simply by the fact that Lammy, Corbyn, Abbott (especially) and McDonnell all had the sense to oppose this at the time.


You seem to be missing the point that, even though discrimination has reduced considerably over the decades, there is still a significant antipathy to foreigners to be found throughout society, including most political parties. And it’s politics that’s currently driving attacks on Conservatives by Labour which, itself is under attack for antisemitism. Claiming that these campaigns (or anti-foreign sentiment) are unrelated or coincidental seems to selectively ignore the timings and what’s being reported. Incompetence is no doubt a factor in the Windrush affair, and the Guardian should be applauded for running with the story. But there must be reasons why it has only recently surfaced despite harsh immigration decisions by officials being reported in Black media for years...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 23, 2018)

patman post said:


> You seem to be missing the point that, even though discrimination has reduced considerably over the decades, there is still a significant antipathy to foreigners to be found throughout society, including most political parties. And it’s politics that’s currently driving attacks on Conservatives by Labour which, itself is under attack for antisemitism. Claiming that these campaigns (or anti-foreign sentiment) are unrelated or coincidental seems to selectively ignore the timings and what’s being reported. Incompetence is no doubt a factor in the Windrush affair, and the Guardian should be applauded for running with the story. But there must be reasons why it has only recently surfaced despite harsh immigration decisions by officials being reported in Black media for years...


the only people suggesting incompetence are the people who made the decisions which led to this clusterfuck


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 23, 2018)




----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2018)

patman post said:


> You seem to be missing the point that, even though discrimination has reduced considerably over the decades, there is still a significant antipathy to foreigners to be found throughout society, including most political parties. And it’s politics that’s currently driving attacks on Conservatives by Labour which, itself is under attack for antisemitism. Claiming that these campaigns (or anti-foreign sentiment) are unrelated or coincidental seems to selectively ignore the timings and what’s being reported. Incompetence is no doubt a factor in the Windrush affair, and the Guardian should be applauded for running with the story. But there must be reasons why it has only recently surfaced despite harsh immigration decisions by officials being reported in Black media for years...


I thought the story was broken by the Guardian? Are you seriously suggesting that there's some Corbynite master plan being operated from within there?

TBH, I think it's part of an ongoing continuum. The fallout from Grenfell Tower continues to paint a similar picture of blithe intolerance of anyone who doesn't have a gravel drive with two entrances, and the quieter, but slower car crash that is benefits policy yields a fairly continuous litany of tales of injustice, uncaringness, and incompetence. I think the thing that makes the Windrush story more significant is that it's actually putting people in the position of having to decide whether they think that the essentially racist immigration policies of the last decade or so are OK, or not, and where that leaves them in terms of their own outlook.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 23, 2018)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


>



Yeah, I'd agree with that. Biometric ID cards just for Windrush immigrants is an insult.

Biometric ID cards for everyone or biometric ID cards for no-one.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 23, 2018)

To back up the Malik pieces that danny la rouge posted, the hero of liberals and saviour of the EU, Macron has just introduced anti-immigration measures. 


> Ministers argue that the bill, given its first reading in the Assemblée Nationale, will speed up asylum applications. Opponents, including humanitarian organisations, claim it will hit the most vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> To back up the Malik pieces that danny la rouge posted, the hero of liberals and saviour of the EU, Macron has just introduced anti-immigration measures.


did you see the groan trying to pimp macron as some sort of 'trump whisperer' now ? twats


----------



## teuchter (Apr 23, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> You might begin your quest here:
> 
> “The problem is not that white workers are desperate to protect their ethnic identity. It is, rather, that in the absence of political mechanisms and social movements that can challenge their wider marginalisation, such identity is all that many have to lean upon.
> 
> ...



danny la rouge 

I did read all of these.

I don't disagree (and never have disgareed) with the basic message that it's very easy for immigration to get blamed for things that actually are the result of other processes.

The last link is the most relevant to my questions about the feasibility of fully open borders.

He talks about Spain having had an open border with North Africa for many years; this is not something I knew about and it's something I should read up on.

He also talks about numbers - and rightly points out that a million is not a large number, dispersed amongst the population of Europe. And I'd agree that even if we didn't go for open borders, we could and should be accepting more refugees. Of course, that million is the number of refugees that have come under the current system, and not the number of migrants who would potentially come, given open borders. I don't know if anyone has made an argument for what that number would likely be. It also ignores the reality that migrants don't necessarily diffuse evenly throughout, and that in certain areas, the number of newly arrived migrants would be much higher than others, in proportion to the longer established population.

I looked to see if I could find Malik talking specifically about having open borders as a 'real' option. I did find this:

ON BREXIT, BORDERS, BEING OFFENSIVE (BUT NOT BEING IN A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE)

a couple of bits from that:



> *MV: You are a supporter of open borders. Why?*
> 
> *KM:* I don’t think we should throw open all borders tomorrow. The question of whether or not one has open borders depends on circumstances and context. I oppose arbitrary restrictions on people, and am in favour of freedom of movement. I also think that many of the fears about the negative impact of open borders are misplaced. The idea for instance, that the whole world will simply walk in. An open door, as the writer and economist Philippe Legrain puts it, is usually a swinging door. People come when there is work, they leave when there isn’t. Ironically, the closing of borders often leads to the very problems that the closure was meant to solve.





> *MV: How do we go forward from here?*
> 
> KM: The dilemma we face is this: on the one hand, any moral and workable immigration policy will not, at least for the moment, possess a democratic mandate; on the other, any policy that has popular support is likely to be immoral and unworkable. That dilemma exists not because the public is particularly drawn to immoral or unworkable policies, but because of the way that the immigration issue has been framed by politicians of all political hues in the past few decades. That’s why it’s so important to have a broad debate on the underlying issues and concerns.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Apr 23, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Relavant article by Kenan over the weekend: ELITE RACISM AND THE WORKING CLASS AS ALIBI
> 
> "The ‘white working class’. It has become, in recent years, almost a synonym for ‘racist’. The belief that racism is a working-class problem, and that many in the white working class voted for Brexit for racist reasons, has become widely accepted among liberals (and not just among liberals).



I don't assume that the "white working class" voted for Brexit because they were racist.

I do however think that many voted for more control over immigration (I may of course be wrong).

But, according to some people on this thread, supporting any kind of immigration controls, or even raising immigration as an "issue" at all, amounts to being racist.

I read the Malik comments as saying that the route to more open border policies involves persuading more people that immigration isn't in itself the 'problem' they think it is. But that'll never happen if people aren't even allowed to talk about it without being called racists. 

What I find particularly unhelpful is when, as soon as someone mentions something as resulting from immigration, they are jumped upon by people telling them to stop blaming immigrants. It's not only untrue - saying that something or other results from high levels of immigration (whether or not the thing even happens in reality) simply is not the same as laying blame at the feet of individual immigrants - but it makes people think feel they aren't allowed to talk about it, and that just fosters resentment, and an unwillingness to be persuaded.


----------



## agricola (Apr 23, 2018)

patman post said:


> You seem to be missing the point that, even though discrimination has reduced considerably over the decades, there is still a significant antipathy to foreigners to be found throughout society, including most political parties. And it’s politics that’s currently driving attacks on Conservatives by Labour which, itself is under attack for antisemitism. Claiming that these campaigns (or anti-foreign sentiment) are unrelated or coincidental seems to selectively ignore the timings and what’s being reported. Incompetence is no doubt a factor in the Windrush affair, and the Guardian should be applauded for running with the story. But there must be reasons why it has only recently surfaced despite harsh immigration decisions by officials being reported in Black media for years...



The problem here is that the articles in relation to this scandal in the Guardian have been going on for six months (and if you expand that to include articles reporting daft Home Office decisions to kick people out then its been running for the past couple of years), so it isn't something that has obviously been deployed as a political attack line.  All that has happened in the past few weeks is that someone has come up with a punchy abbreviation for the crisis (ie: "Windrush generation"), and the Albert Thompson case has revealed the horror of what has been going on and the Governments ongoing inability to see that it has done anything wrong.

The Labour front bench response is what you'd expect any politician, of whatever stripe, who finds themselves confronted with a crisis that they had predicted.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 23, 2018)

I'm not happy with this talk of 'institutional racism'. It seems to me that it's a way for racist individuals within institutions to get a free pass. I want people to be asking whether individual ministers and civil servants are racists. Who thinks there are racists in senior positions driving the discrimination?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> You know Malik has written for Spiked yeah?



No I didn't!  

That's embarassing .. but I admit I've been increasingly avoiding Spiked the more I disliked its articles anyway.



> (I don't disagree with either of these posts fwiw, but they seemed odd bedfellows considering Malik's roots in the RCP and ongoing - if increasingly fading - links with the post-RCP gang)



I've picked up on Malik more recently I suppose. If I'd noticed any RCP connections in his current articles, or any Spiked-like stuff, I'd have been a lot warier about him. 

I like what he's writing at the moment though.


----------



## killer b (Apr 23, 2018)

I don't think you need to be wary of Malik, he's a very perceptive writer. He is still in their orbit though, and there is a lot of crossover between his writing on freedom of speech, critique of multiculturalism etc and the libertarian line the Spiked crew push. Worth bearing in mind anyway.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 23, 2018)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> To back up the Malik pieces that @danny la rouge posted, the hero of liberals and saviour of the EU, Macron has just introduced anti-immigration measures.





DotCommunist said:


> did you see the groan trying to pimp macron as some sort of 'trump whisperer' now ? twats



That pisses me off vastly as well  - the general hero worship/under criticism of Macron in the Guardian.

To be slightly fair though, someone who isn't called Owen Jones  , honest  , attacked Macron fair and square the other day

The above article puts Macron's immigration policy and refugee demonising at the middle of his argument too.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I don't assume that the "white working class" voted for Brexit because they were racist.
> 
> I do however think that many voted for more control over immigration (I may of course be wrong).
> 
> ...



Who are these "people" "who aren't allowed to talk about it"?

You have already posted you are willing to see people drown in the Med.

Where is this resentment?

As we both live in Brixton the resentment fostered that I see from talkng to locals is resentment against racist immigration policy of this and past governmentts.

See my post #496

This resentment I hear in Brixton goes back beyond May hostile environment strategy to the 1971 act that effectively stopped Commonwealth citizens freedom of movement.

I asked you if you agreed that should be reinstated and you said no. Have you changed your mind?

I had another chat today with someone else today whose partner came from Barbados. Some of his partners friends from Barbados here haven't been home for years as they are afraid they won't get back into UK.

I asked him if he thought immigration policy of this country is racist. He said yes.

Back to my other friend in Brixton I posted up in  post 496. We also got onto racism in UK and Brexit.

Btw he is working class Black Londoner. He saw Brexit vote as now allowing people to think its now ok to talk about immigration.

As he said when he grew up in Brixton in the seventies there were areas in London he could not go into as he was black. Things have improved. However Brexit has changed that for the worse. What he meant by going over his experience of growing up in London was that attitudes to immigrants and racism are linked.

It's that people deny the link. Like May the PM does. Why the term institutional racism is used.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2018)

To add some of the things I'm know hearing in Brixton post Commonwealth Conference is that ex colonies citizens want the right is to come here reinstated.

As one person in Brixton said to me UK got wealthy on back of exploiting colonies. The "Mother Country" was happy to exploit colonies.


----------



## billbond (Apr 23, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I don't assume that the "white working class" voted for Brexit because they were racist.
> 
> I do however think that many voted for more control over immigration (I may of course be wrong).
> 
> ...


 

Best post on this subject ive ever seen on here

"He saw Brexit vote as now allowing people to think its now ok to talk about immigration"
He is correct or are you saying its not ok , your "friend" i mean


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> A take on this from Brendan O'Neill from Spiked..
> 
> The Windrush fallout has shattered every Remainer prejudice



I try to read articles like this and they bear no resemblance to my life in Brixton.

The read to me as member of intelligentsia slagging off another section of intelligentsia.

My Black British ( working class) friend was a Remainer , not because he loved EU, but because UKIP and the we want our borders back brigade were pushing the agenda. In Brixton/ Lambeth Remainers were majority. And they weren't all the middle class people of nowhere that right wing intelligentsia assume.

On ethnic minorities voting for Brexit. He ( and another Black British friend said this) that the Tory Brexit lot had been saying we will stop EU people coming here and favour Commonwealth citizens. As both my friends said this was forgotten once they had got there Brexit vote. And they were not fooled by it at the time.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 24, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Who are these "people" "who aren't allowed to talk about it"?
> 
> You have already posted you are willing to see people drown in the Med.



With this you demonstrate exactly the kind of thing that would make some people _feel they aren't allowed to talk about _issues surrounding immigration_. _Which is what I actually said.

I state that I'm aware that the consequences of maintaining borders include what happens in the med. You come back with this rather aggressive assertion that I'm "willing to see people drown".


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 24, 2018)

teuchter I notice you've tagged or quoted me in these two post:

The children of Windrush

The children of Windrush

Was that just a courtesy, or are you expecting a response?  Because you appear to be addressing other people rather than me.

Eg: _ "What I find particularly unhelpful is when, as soon as someone mentions something as resulting from immigration, they are jumped upon by people telling them to stop blaming immigrants."_

- I don't recognise that as anything I've done.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 24, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> teuchter I notice you've tagged or quoted me in these two post:
> 
> The children of Windrush
> 
> ...


First one a courtesy really as you'd offered the links to read. Second one I was just quoting something within your post. 

No, I don't think you're one of the people who does that.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2018)

teuchter said:


> With this you demonstrate exactly the kind of thing that would make some people _feel they aren't allowed to talk about _issues surrounding immigration_. _Which is what I actually said.
> 
> I state that I'm aware that the consequences of maintaining borders include what happens in the med. You come back with this rather aggressive assertion that I'm "willing to see people drown".



Back in post #186 your exact words,



> I'm aware that a consequence of maintaining borders is that desperate people drown in the med. I'm not going to shy away from that.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 24, 2018)

Yes, those were my words. Not what you said they were.


----------



## patman post (Apr 24, 2018)

agricola said:


> The problem here is that the articles in relation to this scandal in the Guardian have been going on for six months (and if you expand that to include articles reporting daft Home Office decisions to kick people out then its been running for the past couple of years), so it isn't something that has obviously been deployed as a political attack line.  All that has happened in the past few weeks is that someone has come up with a punchy abbreviation for the crisis (ie: "Windrush generation"), and the Albert Thompson case has revealed the horror of what has been going on and the Governments ongoing inability to see that it has done anything wrong.
> 
> The Labour front bench response is what you'd expect any politician, of whatever stripe, who finds themselves confronted with a crisis that they had predicted.


The Labour front bench response is a typical socialist attempt at damage limitation — when confronted with being caught out doing nothing to stop antisemitism in the party, hit out with any counter accusation with supporting stories to smear and deflect, no matter that in this case the landing cards were and are irrelevant...


----------



## killer b (Apr 24, 2018)

Typically socialist.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> The Labour front bench response is a typical socialist attempt at damage limitation — when confronted with being caught out doing nothing to stop antisemitism in the party, hit out with any counter accusation with supporting stories to smear and deflect, no matter that in this case the landing cards were and are irrelevant...



Its funny that you're doing here the same thing.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> The Labour front bench response is a typical socialist attempt at damage limitation — when confronted with being caught out doing nothing to stop antisemitism in the party, hit out with any counter accusation with supporting stories to smear and deflect, no matter that in this case the landing cards were and are irrelevant...



Yeah, that's the key problem here. Typical socialist smears. You'd never find tories doing that.

Yawn.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> The Labour front bench response is a typical socialist attempt at damage limitation — when confronted with being caught out doing nothing to stop antisemitism in the party, hit out with any counter accusation with supporting stories to smear and deflect, *no matter that in this case the landing cards were and are irrelevant...*



Proof that people arrived when they said they did so therefore can prove their status is irrelevant? 

The _Labour front bench _or MPs that predicted the issues, have questioned the issues arising since, highlighting cases along the way and are now rightly saying 'we told you so'?

That's not a smear or deflection tactic at all. It's almost as if you think those people who implemented the policies and ignored the concerns made over time shouldn't be held to account.


----------



## oryx (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> The Labour front bench response is a typical socialist attempt at damage limitation — when confronted with being caught out doing nothing to stop antisemitism in the party, hit out with any counter accusation with supporting stories to smear and deflect, no matter that in this case the landing cards were and are irrelevant...



You don't seriously think Labour have protested against the treatment of the Windrush children in order to deflect attention from stories about anti-Semitism, do you?


----------



## killer b (Apr 24, 2018)

I dont think this clown is serious at all tbh.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 24, 2018)

Just a thought, the left should have gone mad about the hostile environment, they should be going mad about people being asked for proof of entitlement for healthcare, they should be going mad about ID for voting and although there are some organisations doing good work I can't help but feel we're going to look back and regret our lack of action.


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> The Labour front bench response is a typical socialist attempt at damage limitation — when confronted with being caught out doing nothing to stop antisemitism in the party, hit out with any counter accusation with supporting stories to smear and deflect, no matter that in this case the landing cards were and are irrelevant...



You'd have been better advised not waiting for JRM before you responded, tbh.


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2018)

More "socialism":



> Margaret O’Brien, 69, moved from Canada to Wolverhampton in 1971, got married, had three children and worked for the local council for more than 25 years as a dinner lady, meals on wheels driver, lollipop lady and cleaner.
> 
> A spinal injury a few years ago meant she had to give up her job, leading her to apply for benefits for the first time. In 2015, she was told her disability payments had been suspended because she was an illegal immigrant.
> 
> ...


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 24, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Employers don't set immigration policy.


They certainly use immigrants and immigration to drive down wages and screw the workers - as I suspect you well know


----------



## patman post (Apr 24, 2018)

oryx said:


> You don't seriously think Labour have protested against the treatment of the Windrush children in order to deflect attention from stories about anti-Semitism, do you?


Problems for immigrants and their descendants caused by immigration officers have been reported in the Black press for years. But now that you mention it, it’s probably coincidence that Labour has chosen now to highlight the situation when it’s under fire for ignoring antisemitism in its ranks....


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> Problems for immigrants and their descendants caused by immigration officers have been reported in the Black press for years. But now that you mention it, it’s probably coincidence that Labour has chosen now to highlight the situation when it’s under fire for ignoring antisemitism in its ranks....




They haven't just started highlighting the problems with this policy. Why are you ignoring that fact?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 24, 2018)

'caused by immigration officers'?

You do realise that immigration officers don't create policy..they enforce it. It seems as if you will do anything to distance this conversation from the actual people that implemented the policy and ignored warnings, why is that?


----------



## patman post (Apr 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> They haven't just started highlighting the problems with this policy. Why are you ignoring that fact?


Guess our definitions of highlighting vary. Mentioning there could be unexpected problems is not the same as an all-out front bench attack as a diversionary tactic, or perhaps it is...


----------



## patman post (Apr 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> 'caused by immigration officers'?
> 
> You do realise that immigration officers don't create policy..they enforce it. It seems as if you will do anything to distance this conversation from the actual people that implemented the policy and ignored warnings, why is that?


Only following orders — Labour’s not the party I’d have expected to drag up that excuse...


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> Guess our definitions of highlighting vary. Mentioning there could be unexpected problems is not the same as an all-out front bench attack as a diversionary tactic, or perhaps it is...



I'd say someone opposing it at the time and in Parliament at that would count as "_highlighting_".


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> Guess our definitions of highlighting vary. Mentioning there could be unexpected problems is not the same as an all-out front bench attack as a diversionary tactic, or perhaps it is...



So you aren't even convinced of your own argument then?

Have you checked the Hansard record and all of the letters that Labour MP's have written over the last 3 years for example about how this policy is affecting people? Have you drawn up a list of all the articles they have contributed to and/or been quoted in? Do you actually know much about this at all?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> Only following orders — Labour’s not the party I’d have expected to drag up that excuse...



I haven't made that excuse though..you are though clearly dancing around holding the policy makers to account...Why is that?


----------



## patman post (Apr 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> So you aren't even convinced of your own argument then?
> 
> Have you checked the Hansard record and all of the letters that Labour MP's have written over the last 3 years for example about how this policy is affecting people? Have you drawn up a list of all the articles they have contributed to and/or been quoted in? Do you actually know much about this at all?


 So how come all this concerted effort has only just attracted mainstream coverage? Coincidence, or a bit of extra impetus...?


----------



## patman post (Apr 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> 'caused by immigration officers'?
> 
> You do realise that immigration officers don't create policy..they enforce it. It seems as if you will do anything to distance this conversation from the actual people that implemented the policy and ignored warnings, why is that?


Neither are the Police supposed to create policy. But I think we all know how certain officers can implement it on the streets...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> So how come all this concerted effort has only just attracted mainstream coverage? Coincidence, or a bit of extra impetus...?




Why should I keep answering your questions if you keep ignoring mine?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> Neither are the Police supposed to create policy. But I think we all know how certain officers can implement it on the streets...



What is this random gobbledegook? Police enforce policy and create their own ways of doing things because they can shocker! This is not an answer to the question I asked.


----------



## patman post (Apr 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Why should I keep answering your questions if you keep ignoring mine?


You questions appear rhetorical. If you can be bothered to really read what I post instead of trying to score points I think you’d find answers...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> You questions appear rhetorical. If you can be bothered to really read what I post instead of trying to score points I think you’d find answers...



No they are not rhetorical. I have asked for example why you are unwilling or able to hold the policy makers to account.

Blaming labour and suggesting they are deflecting and smearing whilst denying that any of those MPS have challenged these policies, blaming immigration officers and now the police.

You keep answering my question with questions.

There are no points to be scored. This is a conversation. You are making a lot of statements that you can't back up when challenged. Why can't you just answer the question?


----------



## patman post (Apr 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> What is this random gobbledegook? Police enforce policy and create their own ways of doing things because they can shocker! This is not an answer to the question I asked.


If you are unable to see a link to the way some state officials operate with the way others interpret policy that probably explains why this conversation is going round in circles. But for the record I am not defending the way the immigration policy has been applied, nor am I more concerned about antisemitism across society. But I do find it remarkable that it takes political squabbling to achieve positive results...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> If you are unable to see a link to the way some state officials operate with the way others interpret policy that probably explains why this conversation is going round in circles.


 Eh?_ I_ can see the link between how policy is created and how it is applied, I can also see and have experienced how state officials abuse their power...so we are not going around in circles, we are headbanging the same point, your inability to talk about the policy makers and hold them to account. Why is that?



> ]But for the record I am not defending the way the immigration policy has been applied, nor am I more concerned about antisemitism across society. But I do find it remarkable that it takes political squabbling to achieve positive results...


 Right...yet again, avoiding actually talking about the very people who have implemented these policies and throwing the word antisemitism up in the air in the hope that you never have to actually deal with the point of this thread.

Nice.


----------



## patman post (Apr 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh?_ I_ can see the link between how policy is created and how it is applied, I can also see and have experienced how state officials abuse their power...so we are not going around in circles, we are headbanging the same point, your inability to talk about the policy makers and hold them to account. Why is that?
> 
> Right...yet again, avoiding actually talking about the very people who have implemented these policies and throwing the word antisemitism up in the air in the hope that you never have to actually deal with the point of this thread.
> 
> Nice.


The Windrush and related problems are being resolved since this thread was started, and any wriggling by officialdom not to give fair compensation will be jumped on. Labour’s inaction on antisemitism remains...


----------



## killer b (Apr 24, 2018)

Streathamite said:


> They certainly use immigrants and immigration to drive down wages and screw the workers - as I suspect you well know


Most employers don't really give a shit about immigration. They just want to pay the least they can for the staff they employ, with the least benefits and job security. Most would say that economic forces beyond their control force them to do that (and they'll probably believe it) - all their competitors do it, they will say, so if they want to employ anyone at all they have to do the same or face financial ruin. 

I don't think there's much point in framing this stuff as an issue of personal or professional morality (unless you're using it to organise, but even then I don't know if it's that much use). Very few bosses will be guilted into paying their employees better - the only effective methods are an organised workforce, or actively enforced regulations, both of which are in short supply right now.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> The Windrush and related problems are being resolved since this thread was started, and any wriggling by officialdom not to give fair compensation will be jumped on. Labour’s inaction on antisemitism remains...



Labour has repatriated and generously compensated _all_ the British jews they were responsible for unlawfully deporting. 

It didn't take them that long tbf.


----------



## GarveyLives (Apr 24, 2018)

Earlier this evening ...

​


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> The Windrush and related problems are being resolved since this thread was started, and any wriggling by officialdom not to give fair compensation will be jumped on. Labour’s inaction on antisemitism remains...



This just does not seem correct to me.

Sections of the press have been focusing on (alleged) Labour party anti semitism for some time now. See London Even Standard had it as front page news.

My Brixton Afro Carribbean friends would like an apology from the Tory party for being institutionally racist. This is what I've been hearing from the Black British community.

Will the media push for this? Doesn't look like it to me. Whilst some press should be praised for bringing the issue up this is step to far for mainstream media.

Which is how the more intelligent Tories are dealing with it. The we messed up on a few thousand Windrush people but surely you aren't saying we should abandon immigration controls line. We must have sensible immigration controls. We are all reasonable people and let's have a discussion on immigration. That is how many to let in.

So the immigration issue gets turned into supposedly rational discussion on what the economy needs.

Which is bollox imo. I'm just playing devils advocate about how this Windrush issue will end.


----------



## patman post (Apr 24, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> This just does not seem correct to me.
> 
> Sections of the press have been focusing on (alleged) Labour party anti semitism for some time now. See London Even Standard had it as front page news.
> 
> ...


The Evening Standard had its own run in with Labour when Livingstone clashed with a Jewish reporter. Livingstone appears to remain an antisemite.

Both the PM and the Home Secretary have apologised for the Windrush debacle. But, as they say, kind words butter no parsnips — so the proof of any positive change will come when everyone’s status is regularised and restitution is made.

As for the remainder, I suggest you read the attached link — I’m 20 years younger than the writer, but I find a lot resonates with me...

Enoch Powell: Let's call a spade a spade


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2018)

patman post said:


> The Evening Standard had its own run in with Labour when Livingstone clashed with a Jewish reporter. Livingstone appears to remain an antisemite.
> 
> Both the PM and the Home Secretary have apologised for the Windrush debacle. But, as they say, kind words butter no parsnips — so the proof of any positive change will come when everyone’s status is regularised and restitution is made.
> 
> ...



I  live in Brixton. I hear about racism directly from my Afro Carribbean friends.

You aren't listening. What my Afro Carribbean friends want is right to freedom of movement within Commonwealth reinstated and an apology from Tory party for being institutionally racist. 

In particular the loss of right of free movement to come here from ex colonies is resented.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 24, 2018)

'Common wealth'

No it fucking isn't.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 25, 2018)

patman post said:


> The Labour front bench response is a typical socialist attempt at damage limitation — when confronted with being caught out doing nothing to stop antisemitism in the party, hit out with any counter accusation with supporting stories to smear and deflect, no matter that in this case the landing cards were and are irrelevant...


Your agenda started showing at "typical socialist attempt"


----------



## existentialist (Apr 25, 2018)

patman post said:


> Guess our definitions of highlighting vary. Mentioning there could be unexpected problems is not the same as an all-out front bench attack as a diversionary tactic, or perhaps it is...


Who were you? This shit stirring RW narrative feels vaguely familiar.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 25, 2018)

Immigration scandal expected to spread beyond Windrush group


----------



## kalidarkone (Apr 25, 2018)

Government announces Jamaican nurse recruitment partnership amid Windrush immigration scandal

Wow! case of one hand not having a fucking clue what the other is doing.....although to be fair that is totally unsurprising!


----------



## patman post (Apr 25, 2018)

8


Gramsci said:


> I  live in Brixton. I hear about racism directly from my Afro Carribbean friends.
> 
> You aren't listening. What my Afro Carribbean friends want is right to freedom of movement within Commonwealth reinstated and an apology from Tory party for being institutionally racist.
> 
> In particular the loss of right of free movement to come here from ex colonies is resented.


Free movement within the Commonwealth is not a decision that rests only with the UK, but with all 53 free and equal member states. However, free access by Commonwealth citizens to the UK alone could be made possible, though I doubt such a move would get public support within a country that has such antipathy to people from overseas living here — especially those who aren’t White. Such feelings appear to be widely held across society and not only to be found among Conservatives, as studies of the areas of large Brexit support suggest...


----------



## kalidarkone (Apr 25, 2018)

I had a massive row with ma last night re: The Windrush scandal . She is of that era and came from Jamaica to London to teach. I remember her relinquishing her Jamaican passport in favour for a British one because she got hassled a lot when we went to Spain and France in the 70' s. 
So she maintains that as she had the foresight to do this, so should other people and lets face it there are overstayers and people should just put their documents in a box like she did!!!! I ended up putting the phone down on her cus she was shouting and not listening to me trying to say that the issue was more with the children of Windrush not born in the UK and we'll there are a million reasons why it did not even cross their minds...and for the original Windrush people I expect most of them were planning to go back to Jamaica. I know so many Jamaicans that have built a house out there - planning to go back when they retire.


----------



## patman post (Apr 25, 2018)

existentialist said:


> Who were you? This shit stirring RW narrative feels vaguely familiar.


I have always been who I am. Any similarity to any other person past or present is coincidental...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 25, 2018)

patman post said:


> I have always been who I am.


ah! an advanced mayism 

a grand but sadly not novel variation on the auld 'i am who i am'.

are you the same person you were 20 years ago?


----------



## elbows (Apr 25, 2018)

> The Home Office and Downing Street were told in 2016 about problems faced by the Windrush generation, the BBC understands.
> 
> They were alerted after the Barbados government raised concerns with the Foreign Office, BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said.





> In April 2016, the then Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond - who is now the chancellor - was told by Caribbean ministers about immigrants facing deportation despite having lived in the UK for most of their lives, and the BBC understands a report about their concerns was passed to the Home Office, which was led at the time by Mrs May.
> 
> It is not clear at what level the concerns were raised.



Home Office 'knew about Windrush issues'


----------



## teqniq (Apr 25, 2018)

Yes well I suspect they had become used to acting as a law unto themselves and subsequently thought they could carry on with impunity. Thankfully due to some pretty decent reportage in this instance they were mistaken.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 25, 2018)

Damian Green 'dismissed Windrush citizenship pleas'



> Document shows May’s former immigration minister said Jamaican migrant’s settled status problems were his own fault


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 25, 2018)

> In 2013 I spoke against May's racist immigration Bill and raised along with David Lammy and others the implications for citizens that did not have documentation or had papers they were not able to get back from the Home Office, as has played out for the Windrush generation as a result.


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 26, 2018)

The Windrush disgrace has expanded and shown over the last days what a shit show the Home Office is. Surely Rudd has to resign now doesn’t she? 

I’m not able to really follow developments as close as I’d like over last day or so.


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> The Windrush disgrace has expanded and shown over the last days what a shit show the Home Office is. Surely Rudd has to resign now doesn’t she?



I don't think it's high enough in the public consciousness now to force her out. If Corbyn had called for her to go earlier the later stuff would have made it hard for her to stay. Labour left it too late and now the government are circling the wagons around the 'Windrush migrants aren't illegal immigrants - Labour should stop conflating the two issues' 

At some point I expect Labour to be accused of an open border policy.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 26, 2018)

I doubt either May or Rudd actually believes that anything that has happened to British Caribbean folk was actually wrong, so a sacking or resignation on point of principal doesn't enter into the equation. So we're looking at this purely in terms of damage limitation, and in the context of an already bitterly divided cabinet and party another senior minister's head rolling would do more harm to May's and the Tories' image than merely having an incompetent racist as home secretary. 

I strongly suspect there are large chunks of tory-voting middle England who don't give point zero two six of a fuck about the poor souls who have been deported, locked up, deprived of their basic rights.


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I strongly suspect there are large chunks of tory-voting middle England who don't give point zero two six of a fuck about the poor souls who have been deported, locked up, deprived of their basic rights.



I suspect there are large chunks of the country that doesn't care about this problem.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 26, 2018)

bemused said:


> I suspect there are large chunks of the country that doesn't care about this problem.



And conveniently for May most of them will be in her target demographic of petty, bitter arseholes.


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2018)

bemused said:


> I don't think it's high enough in the public consciousness now to force her out. If Corbyn had called for her to go earlier the later stuff would have made it hard for her to stay. Labour left it too late and now the government are circling the wagons around the 'Windrush migrants aren't illegal immigrants - Labour should stop conflating the two issues'
> 
> At some point I expect Labour to be accused of an open border policy.



Perhaps - though this fib being exposed about Rudd not knowing about the removals targets (and it almost certainly was a fib, given that theres no other theory that explains why the Home Office targetted the people it did and there seems to have actually have been posters advertizing what the targets were) would have gotten rid of the minister responsible in any previous regime, even Blair's.


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

bemused said:


> I suspect there are large chunks of the country that doesn't care about this problem.


the polling is fairly conclusive that there isn't.


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

The problem the Tories have is that most people like the idea of less immigration in the abstract: and they (like all parties to some degree) have stoked and exploited this for electoral gain. Windrush shows that most people _really_ don't like the reality of less immigration, which is harsh immigration controls - inevitably resulting in their neighbour or co-worker or aunt being deported.

So now here we are.


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

The problem Labour have when challenging this is that most people like the idea of less immigration in the abstract etc etc


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> The problem the Tories have is that most people like the idea of less immigration in the abstract: and they (like all parties to some degree) have stoked and exploited this for electoral gain. Windrush shows that most people _really_ don't like the reality of less immigration, which is harsh immigration controls - inevitably resulting in their neighbour or co-worker or aunt being deported.
> 
> So now here we are.



I'm not sure that it does show that, tbh. 

If anything this is more of a case of the Coalition (and subsequently Tory) government doing their usual trick of wanting to be seen to be tough on a thing but not be willing to pay for it, which in this case led to them giving parameters to (and incentivizing) civil servants that resulted in them removing / attempting to remove / penalizing people based on how cheap or easy it would be get them removed rather than whether they should actually be targetted for removal.  This has led to the absurd and incredibly offensive situation where they have been deliberately going after the elderly, the people who have worked all their lives over here - basically peoples nans, or their favourite uncles / neighbours. 

Obviously if there is a mood against immigration in the country then its against the hypothetical "bad migrant" - the one that commits crime, dishonestly claims benefits etc etc - but under this scandal they are the least likely people to be targetted for removal by the Home Office.   People seem to have cottoned on to the reality of the situation and it offends almost everyone (edit) because the people who have no problem with migration find it confirms everything they think the Government does, whilst the people who have problems with migrants recognize this targets the "deserving" whilst leaves the "undeserving" alone.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 26, 2018)

Low hanging fruit, innit. Which, if the current attitudes to immigration continue to be encouraged, is always at risk of turning into strange fruit.

The whole thing is unutterably depressing


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 26, 2018)

existentialist said:


> Low hanging fruit, innit. Which, if the current attitudes to immigration continue to be encouraged, is always at risk of turning into strange fruit.
> 
> The whole thing is unutterably depressing



If it was about low hanging fruit they'd round up all the Australians who have overstayed their visas.


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> If it was about low hanging fruit they'd round up all the Australians who have overstayed their visas.



They weren't (aren't) that low-hanging at the moment.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> If it was about low hanging fruit they'd round up all the Australians who have overstayed their visas.


Ah, but they're not so _obviously _low-hanging, on account of having lighter skin. If it's all about being seen to be tough on immigration, then you chuck out the people who look more obviously different.


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

Are they not being caught up in the hostile environment? I doubt it would make the news if they were - the Windrush cases are only the tiniest tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2018)

existentialist said:


> Ah, but they're not so _obviously _low-hanging, on account of having lighter skin. If it's all about being seen to be tough on immigration, then you chuck out the people who look more obviously different.


no, the point is to get their money from years of taxes and then hoik them out.


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> Are they not being caught up in the hostile environment? I doubt it would make the news if they were - the Windrush cases are only the tiniest tip of the iceberg.



Not really - the "hostile environment" seems to work in that it only applies once they identify you. 

If you are already working and you don't appear as if you could be "an illegal" then the chances are your boss and your landlord won't think to report you, and if you don't claim benefits then the state won't report you either; so you remain outside its scope until one or more of those things change and they go after you.


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

I know how that works, and agree ethnic minorities are going to be affected worse - but an australian accent is enough to show a new employer / dr / landlord that they need to check someone's status. Or you might just get unlucky.

Man born and raised in UK told he is not a British citizen

Australian man facing deportation over late application | Daily Mail Online

Either way, it's a mistake to assume it's only brown people affected by this.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2018)

A reminder:
Windrush Scandal – protest in Parliament Square, 2pm, Sat 28th April


----------



## existentialist (Apr 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> I know how that works, and agree ethnic minorities are going to be affected worse - but an australian accent is enough to show a new employer / dr / landlord that they need to check someone's status. Or you might just get unlucky.
> 
> Man born and raised in UK told he is not a British citizen
> 
> ...


I knew someone who was a (white) US citizen who was overstaying on her student visa, and she was picked up by "the system" (she got married quite quickly thereafter and succeeded in staying in the country).

I don't suppose there's any reliable way of establishing the relative likelihood of getting removed depending on your skin colour...?


----------



## andysays (Apr 26, 2018)

There was a case reported recently of a (white) woman who came to Britain from Canada as a child who was told when she needed hospital treatment for cancer that she was 'illegal'


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 26, 2018)

I'd imagine the only reason the postwar ukranian/polish migrant wave hasn't been targeted is they're all long gone(dead) or in old folks homes and their children/grandchildren were born here. The 47 resettlement act on wiki says they were granted uk citizenship, how many would have had the right papers for this 'hostile environment'. I haven't got the papers they'd want, not for every year of my life


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> I know how that works, and agree ethnic minorities are going to be affected worse - but an australian accent is enough to show a new employer / dr / landlord that they need to check someone's status. Or you might just get unlucky.
> 
> Man born and raised in UK told he is not a British citizen
> 
> ...



I agree (especially about the mistake to assume that only brown people are affected by this), though I'd point out that in both of those cases it was - and this is not to blame them at all - the individuals interacting with the state that resulted in them being identified.  Both of them were employed for years without any problems and were presumably not reported on by anyone (indeed the first one is possibly the least likely person to be reported in the entire country).


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

agricola said:


> I agree (especially about the mistake to assume that only brown people are affected by this), though I'd point out that in both of those cases it was - and this is not to blame them at all - the individuals interacting with the state that resulted in them being identified.  Both of them were employed for years without any problems and were presumably not reported on by anyone (indeed the first one is possibly the least likely person to be reported in the entire country).


Most of the windrush cases I've read about are a result of people interacting with the authorities too.


----------



## andysays (Apr 26, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd imagine the only reason the postwar ukranian/polish migrant wave hasn't been targeted is they're all long gone(dead) or in old folks homes and their children/grandchildren were born here. The 47 resettlement act on wiki says they were granted uk citizenship, how many would have had the right papers for this 'hostile environment'. I haven't got the papers they'd want, not for every year of my life


One of the paradoxical things about this situation is that post-war migrants from Empire/Commonwealth countries were already effectively British citizens, so didn't (then) need to go through any formal process to become British, unlike your example of Poles or  my MiL who came to Britain from the Philippines in 1967 and became a naturalized Britain citizen.


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> Most of the windrush cases I've read about are a result of people interacting with the authorities too.



TBH I think almost all of the reported ones are, certainly all the ones I've seen.  

Of course that is the biggest indicator of how fundamentally wrong the whole system is, that it has been deliberately set up to catch people who approach it in the expectation that it will do what it is meant to do (whether its regularize their status, pay them the pension they've earned, give them the medical care they need or whatever) rather than target them for removal from the country.


----------



## RainbowTown (Apr 26, 2018)

Bottom line: we currently have the two major political parties in this country mired in vile racism and led by two of the most incompetent leaders of the modern political era. And I even include Cameron and Milliband in that. Yes, it's gotten _that _bad. It's getting to the stage where one is even beginning to laugh _at_ May and Corbyn, so ridiculously substandard are they. And I suppose, in the wake of Windrush and all things anti-semitic, the one overriding question for people is : which of these toxic parties is now the least racist?


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> the polling is fairly conclusive that there isn't.



The polling shows that people who are asked have an opinion (nice to see it's a fair one) - that's somewhat different than people caring about it as a political issue that stirs anger in the country.


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

bemused said:


> The polling shows that people who are asked have an opinion (nice to see it's a fair one) - that's somewhat different than people caring about it as a political issue that stirs anger in the country.


You're just demonstrably wrong. Suck it up.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Apr 26, 2018)

andysays said:


> There was a case reported recently of a (white) woman who came to Britain from Canada as a child who was told when she needed hospital treatment for cancer that she was 'illegal'


They did this to my mother last year when she went to hospital. She got a letter asking her to leave by a certain date or possibly be deported. Never mind that she has had Right of Abode since 1971 as the Australian wife of a (now retired) diplomat, works, votes etc. Not really comparable to the Windrush victims in terms of impact, but it does demonstrate what stupid cunts frame and implement this 'hostile environment'


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 26, 2018)

Tess d’mayhems spokesman have confirmed that Amba Rudderless has the PM’s full backing and confidence. They have said this not once but twice today. 

Twice


She will be gone by cob tomorrow then


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

Doubt it - I think it would be very politically difficult for Rudd to go without May. So neither will.


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> Doubt it - I think it would be very politically difficult for Rudd to go without May. So neither will.



Its a bit hard to recover from scrapping targets that you insisted didn't exist less than 24 hours ago.  Someone is going to resign for this, if not Rudd or May then Glynn Williams (the civil servant sat next to Rudd yesterday and who repeated what she had said).


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Tess d’mayhems spokesman have confirmed that Amba Rudderless has the PM’s full backing and confidence. They have said this not once but twice today.
> 
> Twice
> 
> ...


Yes, the famously hollow backing of the board


----------



## emanymton (Apr 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> the polling is fairly conclusive that there isn't.


Ok this just shows how shit I must be at maths these days. I used to quite good at it honest.

But how is the total percentage of don't knows higher than any of the individual results?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> the polling is fairly conclusive that there isn't.


When even a majority of kippers say they should be able to stay you know the government is on a shitty wicket


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Ok this just shows how shit I must be at maths these days. I used to quite good at it honest.
> 
> But how is the total percentage of don't knows higher than any of the individual results?


Because they haven't included the didn't vote / minor party voters in the breakdown.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2018)

agricola said:


> I'm not sure that it does show that, tbh.
> 
> If anything this is more of a case of the Coalition (and subsequently Tory) government doing their usual trick of wanting to be seen to be tough on a thing but not be willing to pay for it, which in this case led to them giving parameters to (and incentivizing) civil servants that resulted in them removing / attempting to remove / penalizing people based on how cheap or easy it would be get them removed rather than whether they should actually be targetted for removal.  This has led to the absurd and incredibly offensive situation where they have been deliberately going after the elderly, the people who have worked all their lives over here - basically peoples nans, or their favourite uncles / neighbours.
> 
> Obviously if there is a mood against immigration in the country then its against the hypothetical "bad migrant" - the one that commits crime, dishonestly claims benefits etc etc - but under this scandal they are the least likely people to be targetted for removal by the Home Office.   People seem to have cottoned on to the reality of the situation and it offends almost everyone (edit) because the people who have no problem with migration find it confirms everything they think the Government does, whilst the people who have problems with migrants recognize this targets the "deserving" whilst leaves the "undeserving" alone.



But this shows the problem when people ( and I see it here) say they arent racist or anti immigration don't like the consequences.

If one is to have an immigration policy its going to mean that ordinary decent people will be deported or persuaded to leave "voluntarily".

I oppose all immigration controls. Some posters here regard that as extreme.

Why cant we have reasonable discussion on immigration they say.

Its that people want immigration controls but the avert there eyes to what that means.

Only a few will be criminals. Most illegal immigrants want to work.

If one wants immigration controls "decent"  people will be deported.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2018)

The immigration authorities have also for years been going after the South American community. Hard working "low hanging fruit". I know from personal experience. In London lots of Columbians and Brazilians ( not so many Brazilians now as immigration authorities raid there workplaces).

These are , and I know from personal experience, hard working decent visa overstayers / illegal immigrants looking for a better life in UK.

So following the logic of hard working decent people who aren't scroungers or criminals they should be given right to stay here?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2018)

Exhibition in London

Windrush: Portrait of a Generation - Oxo Tower


----------



## teuchter (Apr 26, 2018)

Amongst people who would not be keen on a fully open border policy, which as far as I can make out is most people in the UK, I don't think worries about "criminals" are the main thing. I think people would be worried about sheer numbers and the effects of that on infrastructure as well as culturally. Are worries about overwhelming numbers of people arriving in the UK unfounded? I don't think anyone's really got a clue what would actually happen.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 27, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Amongst people who would not be keen on a fully open border policy, which as far as I can make out is most people in the UK, I don't think worries about "criminals" are the main thing. I think people would be worried about sheer numbers and the effects of that on infrastructure as well as culturally. Are worries about overwhelming numbers of people arriving in the UK unfounded? I don't think anyone's really got a clue what would actually happen.



A unilateral open border policy with an otherwise unchanged neoliberal capitalist society would cause chaos. I believe in removal of borders via the abolition of nation states.


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2018)

I think people _do_ have a clue what would happen - it's a sort of article of faith in modern politics that much antipathy for immigration is driven by the choice taken by the Blair government not to have any transitional controls on immigration when the eastern & central European countries joined the EU in 2004, expecting only a small number of immigrants - the actual number was 10 times what they projected.

Personally I'm not so sure it's that simple an equation, but this is the example anyone would look back to when considering the effects of opening borders.


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> The problem the Tories have is that most people like the idea of less immigration in the abstract: and they (like all parties to some degree) have stoked and exploited this for electoral gain. Windrush shows that most people _really_ don't like the reality of less immigration, which is harsh immigration controls - inevitably resulting in their neighbour or co-worker or aunt being deported.
> 
> So now here we are.


further to this... Yougov have some polling out today which shows the public overwhelmingly support the policy which caused the Windrush scandal - which is where we get when the public discussion about it has been almost exclusively centred around it being poorly implemented policy, rather than the policy itself being responsible for the outrage. 







YouGov |  Where the public stands on immigration


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> If one wants immigration controls "decent"  people will be deported.


i'm planning emigration controls for the penal colony on south georgia. no former person will be allowed to leave. i anticipate much gnashing of teeth from the former ministers who will be resident there.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> further to this... Yougov have some polling out today which shows the public overwhelmingly support the policy which caused the Windrush scandal - which is where we get when the public discussion about it has been almost exclusively centred around it being poorly implemented policy, rather than the policy itself being responsible for the outrage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure it's quite as straightforward as that as surely there are two separate elements to the policy: one relating to when or how often people are asked to show their documents, and another relating to how difficult/expensive it is to obtain those documents that prove a "right to live in Britain".

It's the second of those two elements that is most specifically related to the Windrush Scandal, isn't it? In other words not what that survey question was asking.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 27, 2018)

For me the most interesting part of that survey is where attitudes are broken down according to country of origin of immigrants. Evidence of fundamental racism within the UK population? Also interesting that in 2017 they didn't think it necessary to include Jamaica as one of those countries of origin in the survey questions.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Exhibition in London
> 
> Windrush: Portrait of a Generation - Oxo Tower








 interesting picture from there.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> further to this... Yougov have some polling out today which shows the public overwhelmingly support the policy which caused the Windrush scandal - which is where we get when the public discussion about it has been almost exclusively centred around it being poorly implemented policy, rather than the policy itself being responsible for the outrage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The amount of stuff needed to open bank accounts is ridiculous. I've been asked for ID when opening a new savings account with my own bank - 'its to prevent money laundering' - 'but I've been a customer with you for over 20years, you must know who I am by now'.
A british friend who has lived in Amsterdam for 30 years is having terrible problems using her HSBC account here (that she has had with them since it was the Midland) they want her to produce all sorts of documents 'to prevent money laundering' or maybe it was to prove her right to live here, as if being born in Accrington wasn't bad enough.

How come if banks are so awkwardly fussy they haven't actually prevented criminals and oligarchs from actally using London for their money laundering.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 27, 2018)

HSBC? Oh the irony.


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Not sure it's quite as straightforward as that as surely there are two separate elements to the policy: one relating to when or how often people are asked to show their documents, and another relating to how difficult/expensive it is to obtain those documents that prove a "right to live in Britain".
> 
> It's the second of those two elements that is most specifically related to the Windrush Scandal, isn't it? In other words not what that survey question was asking.


I think most people's response to this isn't based on the existence or otherwise of documents - it's based on fairness. While the Windrush generation are British citizens who's right to be here is undeniable, most people would also support the right of other people in a similar position but without the same rights too. IMO the trigger for sympathy isn't a technical immigration rule that they or their parents arrived before 1971 from a former colony, but the fact that they have lived and worked here for decades, paid taxes, become part of the community, laid down roots.

Which is why the fix they are trying to work out at the moment for Windrush generation migrants only is just not going to work, because your neighbour of 30 years and your co-worker and your ageing aunt are still getting deported as they or their family arrived a year too late.

So by not dealing with it properly, by pretending it's simply a case of overzealous home office administrators and unfortunately lost documents and not the policy itself that's unworkable, they've simply prolonged the clusterfuck this has created.


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2018)

teuchter said:


> For me the most interesting part of that survey is where attitudes are broken down according to country of origin of immigrants. Evidence of fundamental racism within the UK population? Also interesting that in 2017 they didn't think it necessary to include Jamaica as one of those countries of origin in the survey questions.
> 
> View attachment 133810 View attachment 133811


racisms certainly a part of it, but it's a lot more complex than that - why are Romanians so much more poorly regarded than the Polish? Indians score higher than Pakistanis? I think there's a whole load of cultural & economic factors behind those figures. (and some racism)


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2018)

Anyway. By all rights Rudd is toast. 

Amber Rudd was told about migrant removal targets, leak reveals


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Apr 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> Anyway. By all rights Rudd is toast.
> 
> Amber Rudd was told about migrant removal targets, leak reveals



Fingers crossed. Not that it would change anything but the ability of cabinet members in the last few years to avoid the chop over what were once sackable offences really denies us the rare opportunity of a bit of schadenfreude.


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2018)

I don't think this is something that can be  brushed off. I can't see her lasting the weekend. Maybe even the day.

Michael Gove to the home office then.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 27, 2018)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Fingers crossed. Not that it would change anything but the ability of cabinet members in the last few years to avoid the chop over what were once sackable offences really denies us the rare opportunity of a bit of schadenfreude.


It has gone beyond a constant source of amazement to me into a kind of weary numbness.


----------



## RainbowTown (Apr 27, 2018)

Resign or kick her out of office. Her position is totally untenable.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 27, 2018)

As has already been said doesn't her going put May in a precarious position?


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2018)

teqniq said:


> As has already been said doesn't her going put May in a precarious position?


if She resigns now (I think she most likely will) it will be over lying to parliament rather than anything to do with the administration of theresa may's home office policy. So less damaging to May  (Although it's still a headache)


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> racisms certainly a part of it, but it's a lot more complex than that - why are Romanians so much more poorly regarded than the Polish? Indians score higher than Pakistanis? I think there's a whole load of cultural & economic factors behind those figures. (and some racism)


Racism is probably a pretty big part of both of those. Indians are much less likely to be evil muslims, and Poles are much less likely to be gypsies.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 27, 2018)

Linton Kwesi Johnson: ‘It was a myth that immigrants didn’t want to fit into British society. We weren’t allowed’

by LKJ


> “But, right now, we are living through a time of reaction; the rise of Conservative populism. And some things simply won’t go away. I’m sure I’ll be crucified for saying this, but I believe that racism is very much part of the cultural DNA of this country, and most probably has been so from imperial times. And, in spite of the progress that we have made, it’s there. It is something we have to contend with in our everyday lives.”


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Not sure it's quite as straightforward as that as surely there are two separate elements to the policy: one relating to when or how often people are asked to show their documents, and another relating to how difficult/expensive it is to obtain those documents that prove a "right to live in Britain".
> 
> It's the second of those two elements that is most specifically related to the Windrush Scandal, isn't it? In other words not what that survey question was asking.



Have you actually talked to Black British people in Brixton about this?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think most people's response to this isn't based on the existence or otherwise of documents - it's based on fairness. While the Windrush generation are British citizens who's right to be here is undeniable, most people would also support the right of other people in a similar position but without the same rights too. IMO the trigger for sympathy isn't a technical immigration rule that they or their parents arrived before 1971 from a former colony, but the fact that they have lived and worked here for decades, paid taxes, become part of the community, laid down roots.
> 
> Which is why the fix they are trying to work out at the moment for Windrush generation migrants only is just not going to work, because your neighbour of 30 years and your co-worker and your ageing aunt are still getting deported as they or their family arrived a year too late.
> 
> So by not dealing with it properly, by pretending it's simply a case of overzealous home office administrators and unfortunately lost documents and not the policy itself that's unworkable, they've simply prolonged the clusterfuck this has created.



But as I have been intimating the "fairness" argument should then apply to other groups.

Such as Latin Americans. In London they do the night time cleaning of offices for example. Where I am now in London there is a lot of Columbians.


I've known Latin Americans here. And lets say there immigration status is often borderline.

So how long should they work here with lack of proper visa for them to come under "fairness" concept?

What you appear to suggest is that an "illegal" immigrant if they manage to avoid the immigration authorities and work hard should be allowed to stay in UK on some kind of policy on "fairness".

Sorry but that is not how immigration controls work.

Immigration controls are about limiting number of people allowed to settle permanently in a country. You could work hard but once your visa runs out off you go.

A system of points based immigration for example is about what is needed for the economy. As decided by government. Once you aren't needed your right to stay is not renewed.

Immigration controls aren't about some kind of moral reward for working hard.

It's not about some wishy washy concept of fairness.


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2018)

You know I'm not talking about my own position there don't you?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> racisms certainly a part of it, but it's a lot more complex than that - why are Romanians so much more poorly regarded than the Polish? Indians score higher than Pakistanis? I think there's a whole load of cultural & economic factors behind those figures. (and some racism)



I've worked with Romanians and know one as she used to work in coffee bar I used. They are ordinary decent people. Who come from a country that was shafted with fall of communism. A few became wealthy. Ordinary Romanians lost out. 

Daily hate Mail has done a good job on whipping up anti Romanian/ East European prejudice.


----------



## patman post (Apr 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think most people's response to this isn't based on the existence or otherwise of documents - it's based on fairness. While the Windrush generation are British citizens who's right to be here is undeniable, most people would also support the right of other people in a similar position but without the same rights too. IMO the trigger for sympathy isn't a technical immigration rule that they or their parents arrived before 1971 from a former colony, but the fact that they have lived and worked here for decades, paid taxes, become part of the community, laid down roots.
> 
> Which is why the fix they are trying to work out at the moment for Windrush generation migrants only is just not going to work, because your neighbour of 30 years and your co-worker and your ageing aunt are still getting deported as they or their family arrived a year too late.
> 
> So by not dealing with it properly, by pretending it's simply a case of overzealous home office administrators and unfortunately lost documents and not the policy itself that's unworkable, they've simply prolonged the clusterfuck this has created.


Don’t see the problem. People were/are either permanently in the UK legally or not. Those that were British when they arrived should obviously be allowed to stay with all the benefit of legal residents. But giving blanket amnesties to all those who are not legally here simply because they have evaded the authorities for a few years is wrong. By all means judge individual cases on their merits, but a blanket approval lessens the number of places for those the country desperately needs (eg, doctors)...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> You know I'm not talking about my own position there don't you?



You could make it more clear.

I am coming from standpoint of living in Brixton, working with East Europeans and having a partner who is from another EU country.

I live this. Im not particularly interested in polls or abstract discussion on this matter of immigration. It's directly part of my life and personal experience.

Which is why I have taken  time off Brixton forum and posted here.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2018)

patman post said:


> Don’t see the problem. People were/are either permanently in the UK legally or not. Those that were British when they arrived should obviously be allowed to stay with all the benefit of legal residents. But giving blanket amnesties to all those who are not legally here simply because they have evaded the authorities for a few years is wrong. By all means judge individual cases on their merits, but a blanket approval lessens the number of places for those the country desperately needs (eg, doctors)...



So you are for putting Columbians back on next flight to Columbia?


----------



## patman post (Apr 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> So you are for putting Columbians back on next flight to Columbia?


If they are discovered to be in the UK illegally, it should certainly be considered, unless they can make a good case for staying...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 27, 2018)

In a country of 60 million the numbers involved in these disgusting targets are really very small in terms of making any meaningful difference to the rest of us. A few thousand people a year are fucked over, no doubt at considerable expense, for what?


----------



## patman post (Apr 27, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In a country of 60 million the numbers involved in these disgusting targets are really very small in terms of making any meaningful difference to the rest of us. A few thousand people a year are fucked over, no doubt at considerable expense, for what?


I guess that’s an argument that could be made against prosecuting any number of illegal activities. But I doubt it’s one the majority of law abiding citizens would agree with...


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> You could make it more clear.
> 
> I am coming from standpoint of living in Brixton, working with East Europeans and having a partner who is from another EU country.
> 
> ...


Immigration is part of the lives and lived experiences of people who don't live in Brixton too. It isn't some kind of top trumps game.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> Immigration is part of the lives and lived experiences of people who don't live in Brixton too. It isn't some kind of top trumps game.



I'm well aware of that. I don't originally come from Brixton. 

As this thread is about Windrush and its become about immigration my life, accidentally, means I have a lot of personal experience of it.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2018)

patman post said:


> I guess that’s an argument that could be made against prosecuting any number of illegal activities. But I doubt it’s one the majority of law abiding citizens would agree with...



The difference being that being an illegal immigrant , working, not relying on state benefits in the minds of a lot of people not the same as breaking the law by being a house burgler for example. 

Being an illegal immigrant isn't actually affecting negatively on one's personal space or a threat to one's belongings.

In actual fact the illegal immigrant might be the person whose spent the night cleaning one's office.


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2018)

Why do you keep telling me you have lots of experience of immigration? I heard you first time. 

You say you aren't particularly interested in discussing the things I'm posting about. That's fine. Don't reply to them.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2018)

patman post said:


> If they are discovered to be in the UK illegally, it should certainly be considered, unless they can make a good case for staying...



Well at least you are honest and logical in your opinion. 

I as is clear would not agree.

What I can't stand is wishy washy liberalism.


----------



## patman post (Apr 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> The difference being that being an illegal immigrant , working, not relying on state benefits in the minds of a lot of people not the same as breaking the law by being a house burgler for example.
> 
> Being an illegal immigrant isn't actually affecting negatively on one's personal space or a threat to one's belongings.
> 
> In actual fact the illegal immigrant might be the person whose spent the night cleaning one's office.


Strange argument. Why can’t office cleaners be legit residents? That would be more jobs for them and less need to thieve, more living accommodation available, etc. Or are you saying locals won’t/cannot do the jobs...?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 27, 2018)

patman post said:


> I guess that’s an argument that could be made against prosecuting any number of illegal activities. But I doubt it’s one the majority of law abiding citizens would agree with...


I don't class not having certain papers as an 'illegal activity'.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 28, 2018)

patman post said:


> If they are discovered to be in the UK illegally, it should certainly be considered, unless they can make a good case for staying...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 28, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> The difference being that being an illegal immigrant , working, not relying on state benefits in the minds of a lot of people not the same as breaking the law by being a house burgler for example.
> 
> Being an illegal immigrant isn't actually affecting negatively on one's personal space or a threat to one's belongings.
> 
> In actual fact the illegal immigrant might be the person whose spent the night cleaning one's office.



this is partly the reason why racists prefer to refer to "illegals" - dehumanising them altogether.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2018)

patman post said:


> Strange argument. Why can’t office cleaners be legit residents? That would be more jobs for them and less need to thieve, more living accommodation available, etc. Or are you saying locals won’t/cannot do the jobs...?



It's not my argument. Im just relaying how it works in practice. Why can't ( Columbian) office cleaners be legit is a good question.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 28, 2018)

Trigger warning: conservative viewpoints.

Two of many under-remarked aspects of this nasty episode are the total inversion of British justice (innocent till proven guilty) and the counter-Christian nature of the "hostile environment" - you know, the Christianity that the right wing constantly moan is going down the tubes. 

Sadly, plenty of people will be happy enough with what has happened. They will resent what's happening and be brewing up their backlash, not least when the compo starts to get processed. Such people despise British traditions while proclaiming same, and are rarely called out.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Apr 28, 2018)

patman post said:


> Strange argument. Why can’t office cleaners be legit residents? That would be more jobs for them and less need to thieve, more living accommodation available, etc. Or are you saying locals won’t/cannot do the jobs...?


I see you.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Apr 28, 2018)

killer b said:


> racisms certainly a part of it, but it's a lot more complex than that - why are Romanians so much more poorly regarded than the Polish? Indians score higher than Pakistanis? I think there's a whole load of cultural & economic factors behind those figures. (and some racism)



There's a class element to it as well with the Indians and Pakistani... Indians living in the UK are more likely to be mc where are Pakistani who have come to love in the UK are more likely to be rural poor... which knocks on to loads of other stuff like english language ability, educational attainment (not because rural poor at thick but because of being able to fit more readily into mc institutions such as school). I'm more talking it out than anything... I'm sure you know all this already.


----------



## patman post (Apr 28, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't class not having certain papers as an 'illegal activity'.


Some people might consider driving without insurance or owning firearms in the same way. Doesn’t make them correct though...


----------



## patman post (Apr 28, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> It's not my argument. Im just relaying how it works in practice. Why can't ( Columbian) office cleaners be legit is a good question.


As far as I am aware people from anywhere can be office cleaners provided they obtain the required resident and working permissions...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 28, 2018)

patman post said:


> Some people might consider driving without insurance or owning firearms in the same way. Doesn’t make them correct though...


Some people might think you're a disingenuous cunt for pretending not to see the difference.  Fuck off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2018)

patman post said:


> The Labour front bench response is a typical socialist attempt at damage limitation — when confronted with being caught out doing nothing to stop antisemitism in the party, hit out with any counter accusation with supporting stories to smear and deflect, no matter that in this case the landing cards were and are irrelevant...


You're in good company with this line, Gove's come out and said the same. The pob faced cunt


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2018)

another example of that habit politicos have of accusing the other person of playing politics over an important issue. Should be instantly put to death for mouthing that hypocrisy- its professional politicians, we know they live and breath the game so calling 'playing politics' is 1st class bullshit, it is in fact a political play itself


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2018)

Rudds claim that she didnt know about the targets should be easy to sort. Well its a bit of a hostile environment for her at the moment but all she needs to do is submit a range of documented proof that she didnt know about the targets. However in order to be rigorous and prevent abuse of this system, she will need to submit separate proof about her lack of knowledge about her own departments targets for every week that these targets remained in place. This seems completely reasonable and fair and if she cannot comply then she will just have to suffer the consequences in order to deter others from demonstrating the same disregard for the customs of our nation in future.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 28, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> You're in good company with this line, Gove's come out and said the same. The pob faced cunt


Yeah, I reckon Pob is only trying to claim Labour is using the Tory Windrush clusterfuck to distract attention from their problems as a way of distracting from, er, the Tory Windrush clusterfuck 

Still, at least it's distracting everyone from Grenfell, Brexit, and all the other Tory clusterfucks, eh?


----------



## GarveyLives (Apr 28, 2018)

Returning to the subject matter of the thread, in one of the earliest cases to be widely reported in the 'Windrush General' scandal'  63-year old *Sylvester Marshall*, who the Guardian had been calling *'Albert Thompson'* at his request as he pursued his immigration application with the Home Office and is the Windrush victim who was denied NHS cancer care, has been given permanent right to remain in the UK after a battle with the Home Office that has absorbed nine years of his life.  He has lived in the UK for 44 years.

​

Windrush cancer patient has UK residency status confirmed (click for more)


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 28, 2018)

Good news, but as with the other cases, it should never have come to this...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2018)

elbows said:


> Rudds claim that she didnt know about the targets should be easy to sort. Well its a bit of a hostile environment for her at the moment but all she needs to do is submit a range of documented proof that she didnt know about the targets. However in order to be rigorous and prevent abuse of this system, she will need to submit separate proof about her lack of knowledge about her own departments targets for every week that these targets remained in place. This seems completely reasonable and fair and if she cannot comply then she will just have to suffer the consequences in order to deter others from demonstrating the same disregard for the customs of our nation in future.



Her defence is basically that she wasn't doing her job properly and didn't know what her own department was doing. So if it works and she's off the hook for the targets debacle she should get fired for incompetence instead. But then if incompetence was grounds for dismissal from May's cabinet it would consist entirely of Larry the cat and the woman who brings the tea trolley.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 28, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Her defence is basically that she wasn't doing her job properly and didn't know what her own department was doing. So if it works and she's off the hook for the targets debacle she should get fired for incompetence instead. But then if incompetence was grounds for dismissal from May's cabinet it would consist entirely of Larry the cat and the woman who brings the tea trolley.


...and I've heard she sometimes runs out of Digestives.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2018)

existentialist said:


> ...and I've heard she sometimes runs out of Digestives.



I bet tories love digestives, sick fuckers that they are


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2018)

I felt I didn't know enough about history of immigration controls. Found this short article by Paul Foot.

It's useful as short history. Its written from his perspective as a revolutionary socialist. He opposed any immigration controls.

Paul Foot: Immigration and the British Labour Movement (Autumn 1965)

What I learnt from it is the following:


   Immigration controls are recent. In 19c the consensus was that Free Trade also meant free movement. The Liberal bourgeois ideologically opposed controls. They were opposing last vestiges of feudalism and this was a liberty issue. The first time immigration controls were attempted to be brought in the Liberal bourgeois fiercely opposed them.

The early socialist movement, whether reformist or revolutionary all opposed immigration controls on basis that all workers should be treated the same. Socialist Internationalism was the norm.

So up to early 20c it was perfectly normal for a range of political groups to oppose immigration controls.

Foot doesn't shy away from discussing opposition to immigrants in working class communities.

The first group targeted by politicians were Jews in early 1900s Who had come here fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe. This involved a lot of racist attitudes.

Specifically on Commonwealth immigration post war he has good section. Initially all political sides regarded right of Commonwealth subjects to come here as unquestionable. This was after all the "Mother" country.

Foot points out that commited campaigning using race is highly effective. He said the traditional Marxist idea that development of capitalism inevitably throws workers together and leads to all workers uniting doesn't seem to apply when race is used in campaigning.

Foot is highly critical of Labour party. Moving from its early days of opposition to immigration control due to it being Internationalist, to supporting Commonwealth immigration using the rhetoric of a maternalist British Empire. Then capitulating to right and supporting immigration controls. Just trying to make them little less nasty than Tories.

The article is about Labour movement mainly but Tories come out of it as the party that legitimised racial opposition to migrants.
Its an old article but shows the, to my surprise, short history of government immigration control. How the "common sense" on migration moved from opposition to controls to one where the discussion is about how many to let in. He also shows imo race and immigration are linked.

He puts the problem forward that anti immigration/ racist campaigning is highly effective. Post this article see the rise of UKIP pre the referendum. So he's been proved right.

To add he puts forward arguments for opposing immigration controls. It wouldn't mean unmanageable numbers of people coming here. He uses figures of Commonwealth migration to show it went up and down in relation to ups and downs in economy.


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 28, 2018)

Rudd, a liar or incompetent. Possibly both.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 28, 2018)

Chilli.s said:


> Rudd, a liar or incompetent. Possibly both.


It's quite fun watching her waver between the two, though.

I do find it quite astonishing that an entire political party can manage to field quite such a comprehensive team of incompetents, losers, transparent liars, and socially awkward fools, quite so consistently. I find it even more astonishing that they're even remotely electable.


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 28, 2018)

[QUOTE="existentialist, post: 15537341,
I do find it quite astonishing that an entire political party can manage to field quite such a comprehensive team of incompetents, losers, transparent liars, and socially awkward fools, quite so consistently. I find it even more astonishing that they're even remotely electable.[/QUOTE]

It does seem to be a particular type of weirdo that goes into politics
.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 29, 2018)

Tory chairman says he discussed deportations with Amber Rudd



> Brandon Lewis has admitted knowing about attempts to increase the number of government deportations and discussing them with Amber Rudd while a minister in her department, increasing pressure on the home secretary to resign.
> 
> The Conservative party chairman said he had seen the memo that was leaked to the Guardian on Friday and said he had talked to Rudd about “ambitions” to increase the number of people deported from Britain.
> 
> Lewis’s claims appear to contradict Rudd’s evidence to the home affairs select committee last Wednesday, when she was asked when targets for removals were set. Rudd told the committee: “We do not have targets for removals.”...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 29, 2018)

existentialist said:


> It's quite fun watching her waver between the two, though.
> 
> I do find it quite astonishing that an entire political party can manage to field quite such a comprehensive team of incompetents, losers, transparent liars, and socially awkward fools, quite so consistently. I find it even more astonishing that they're even remotely electable.



i am increasingly appalled by the utter conceit that these elected official seem to hold for their electorate - when wa the last time anyone actully held their hands up, admitted they were incompetent, corrupt or a serial liar and actually left parliament- not just resigned from their cabinet but actually did the right thing and left politics ?


----------



## existentialist (Apr 29, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> i am increasingly appalled by the utter conceit that these elected official seem to hold for their electorate - when wa the last time anyone actully held their hands up, admitted they were incompetent, corrupt or a serial liar and actually left parliament- not just resigned from their cabinet but actually did the right thing and left politics ?


Well, TBF, even that wouldn't be enough for me. If Amber Rudd isn't rocking the hair shirt, sackcloth, and ashes look by this time next week, she hasn't gone nearly far enough. Then again, you'd have to shave pretty much every hairy animal in the land, create an environmental catastrophe in ash production, and denude the country of sacks for justice to be served on all the MPs who deserve to do the same.

Time was when having the "full confidence" of a Prime Minister was the cue for a prompt departure into oblivion. Something has gone terribly wrong.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 29, 2018)

Something has been terribly wrong for ages. We don't really live in a true democracy only now politicians are more comfortably brazen about it.

Resign? Fuck you.


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 29, 2018)

Resigned. Home secretaries resigning's not usually a healthy sign for a government...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 29, 2018)

Resigned?

Home Secretary gone cos she’s a lying racist shit.

Ha ha.


----------



## neonwilderness (Apr 29, 2018)

Amber Rudd resigns as home secretary after Windrush scandal


----------



## oryx (Apr 29, 2018)

I wonder who'll replace her. No-one obvious springs to mind.


----------



## neonwilderness (Apr 29, 2018)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 29, 2018)

Pants on fire.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 30, 2018)




----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 30, 2018)

from Guardian comments - 





> Don't think of it as getting the sack, Amber. Think of it as being removed because of irregularities with your paperwork.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 30, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


>


A bit too hasty, though. Much better to find that the bank card doesn't work, so there's a big problem buying food, and then she gets thrown out of job, and then thrown out of rented flat, and then unable to pay for gas and electricity ... after a few weeks of this then take her to a detention centre and then to a plane.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 30, 2018)

What lovely news to wake up to.


----------



## 19force8 (May 2, 2018)

Tories are now trying to get away with an internal Home Office inquiry to make "a full review of lessons learned, independent oversight and external challenge."

Home Office review into Windrush failings

Whereas Labour are pushing a "motion for a return" this afternoon to get all relevant internal documents handed to the Commons Home Affairs Committee. This would include information about any detentions or deportations, the setting of deportation targets, and how the policies were seen as affecting people’s lives.


----------



## patman post (May 2, 2018)

Human rights experts appointed by the UN have expressed concerns about structural racism in the UK.
UN express serious concerns of ‘racist fabric’ of UK society
Certainly Police and the law ratchet their activities and judgements up a notch when non-Whites are in the frame. So I don’t make one of the major political parties any more culpable than any other over Windrush. Nor do I think middle ranking or senior civil servants are less involved in wrongful treatment of people over immigration issues...


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2018)

This recent clown invasion needs bringing to an end I reckon.


----------



## agricola (May 2, 2018)

Labour lost the motion requesting all files etc be made available to the Commons by 220-something to 316.  It would be very interesting to see who from Labour didn't turn up.


----------



## teqniq (May 2, 2018)

Fucking disgusting.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2018)

win or lose, Labour won that really.


----------



## gawkrodger (May 7, 2018)

the next related scandal? 

At least 1,000 highly skilled migrants wrongly face deportation, experts reveal


----------



## agricola (May 7, 2018)

gawkrodger said:


> the next related scandal?
> 
> At least 1,000 highly skilled migrants wrongly face deportation, experts reveal



It is the same scandal (that of the Government wanting to bring the immigration numbers to a certain level but not wanting to pay for it to be done properly - so the Home Office ends up incentivized to go after the easiest people it can find to deport, with the "best" at that being the ones who get rewarded) just examined from another angle.


----------



## GarveyLives (May 7, 2018)

The case of eighty-four-year-old *Stanford Robinson* who has lived and worked in the country for _sixty-three years_ demonstrates the challenges faced by the Windrush Generation:

Boxer's Steve Robinson's dad on his 'disgusting' treatment by the Home Office

Windrush: Boxing champ Steve Robinson's dad told he can stay in UK


----------



## GarveyLives (May 7, 2018)




----------



## GarveyLives (May 13, 2018)

Another example ...

Windrush NHS nurse, 81, is separated from her six kids and homeless in Jamaica after being refused re-entry to Britain following 2010 holiday  (click for more)

Emotional return to Britain for exiled Windrush great-grandmother, 81, as she arrives at Gatwick after nine years stranded in Jamaica[/url]  (click for more)






(Source: Daily Mirror)

Gretel Gocan, _81_, who came to the UK in 1960, has now been reunited with her family after almost a decade of enforced exile in Jamaica with _no home, no cash and no pension_.​


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 15, 2018)

Sixty-three Windrush migrants 'removed'


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

Windrush: Pair tell MPs and peers of detention 'nightmare'


> ...When Labour peer Baroness Lawrence asked whether Mr Bryan thought things would have been different if he had been from Canada, New Zealand or Australia, he replied: "I hate to say it, but I don't think I would have this problem". Asked whether he thought race was a factor in his treatment, Mr Bryan said: "In the Home Office? Yes."...


----------



## GarveyLives (May 19, 2018)

Earlier this week ...

Homeless Windrush man arrested after being invited to Home Office citizenship meeting


----------



## eatmorecheese (May 19, 2018)

GarveyLives said:


> Earlier this week ...
> 
> Homeless Windrush man arrested after being invited to Home Office citizenship meeting


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 19, 2018)




----------



## Treacle Toes (May 21, 2018)

> Lewisham Deptford Labour Party
> 
> *JUSTICE FOR WINDRUSH: CALL TO ACTION*
> 
> ...





> *LEWISHAM DEPTFORD BAME FORUM - EMERGENCY MOTION ON WINDRUSH SCANDAL
> *
> 
> WE DENOUNCE:
> ...



Our local Labour party are getting organised on this matter. Hoping the other regions/boroughs are doing likewise.


----------



## bemused (May 21, 2018)

So he's in prison on a stolen goods charge, after he visited the Home Office to make sure he had legal status to remain - and they grassed him up? Wankers.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 21, 2018)

Windrush migrants still sleeping rough one month after minister's promise


----------



## ska invita (May 24, 2018)

killer b said:


> This thread from Akala has some interesting background and analysis too:
> 
> Thread by @akalamusic: "Post war 'mass migration' myths and realities, a thread.So you may have seen lots of seemingly ridiculous commonwealth deportation cases rec […]"


very solid interview with Akala elaborating on those points eloquently and concisely without the distraction of trying to fit it in a series of tweets (though Ash S is distracting as is her way)


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 25, 2018)

Windrush citizens trapped in Jamaica criticise British officials


----------



## ska invita (May 25, 2018)

In a way Amber Rudd's resignation may have taken some heat out of the pressure on government on this


----------



## Celyn (May 25, 2018)

ska invita said:


> In a way Amber Rudd's resignation may have taken some heat out of the pressure on government on this


Yes, in that they can view it as "OK, there's the traditional one person sacrifice/resignation in turn for future favours sorted out".

But the whole damn royal wedding thing has been good at keeping real and important things out of the news. (And also sneaking in a few more useless bad bastards to the House of Lords).

I'm going to try again to hear Akala, but my computer not good at sounds and my hearing not good either.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 9, 2018)

> *Windrush victims say government response is a 'shambles'*
> People tell of relatives still stuck abroad, debt problems and official ‘incompetence’



Windrush victims say government response is a 'shambles'


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 11, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Windrush victims say government response is a 'shambles'


It's appalling, isn't it. Although I suspect its worse than a 'shambles', what they're doing is inhumane.


----------



## GarveyLives (Jun 23, 2018)

Professor Gus John:  Why I’m turning down Theresa May’s invitation to celebrate Windrush (click for more)


----------



## GarveyLives (Jul 16, 2018)

Caribbean woman whose Windrush father served in Royal Air Force facing deportation from UK (click for more)


----------



## GarveyLives (Aug 22, 2018)

The latest in this disrespectful shambles ...

Windrush: Government admits 83 British citizens may have been wrongfully deported due to scandal but will only apologise to 18


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 31, 2018)

Windrush: three people wrongly deported from UK have died, says official


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

It seems inadequate to say anything to that.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> It seems inadequate to say anything to that.



Yes. I feel like saying that I care about it, and not adding anything else.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 21, 2018)

Don’t let the Windrush outrage die while the scandal continues | Gary Younge


----------



## agricola (Sep 21, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Don’t let the Windrush outrage die while the scandal continues | Gary Younge



au contraire, mes amis:

*Windrush generation members to be refused UK citizenship, government announces*


----------



## eatmorecheese (Sep 21, 2018)

Cunts. Learnt nothing, don't give a shit. Vile.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 21, 2018)




----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 12, 2018)

Windrush : 11 people wrongly deported from UK have died – Sajid Javid

*Windrush: 11 people wrongly deported from UK have died – Javid*
Officials unable to contact many of those affected, suggesting death toll could be higher


----------



## GarveyLives (Jan 25, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Don’t let the Windrush outrage die while the scandal continues | Gary Younge



Unlikely:

Dexter Bristol: Windrush migrant's death to get second inquest amid Home Office dispute







*She won't give up.*​


----------



## GarveyLives (Feb 3, 2019)

Latest development:

Dozens of Caribbean nationals to be deported on first charter flight to Jamaica since Windrush scandal
















*English visitors currently in Antigua enjoy the reciprocal arrangements.*​


----------



## zahir (Feb 5, 2019)

Windrush scandal: Eligible victim wrongly denied help


> Ms Sims moved to the UK from the US with her mother and has lived in the UK for more than 35 years.
> 
> She was put in foster care as a teenager after her mother died, and it was around this time that much of her documentation was lost - including family photos and her original passport declaring she has indefinite leave to remain.
> 
> ...


----------



## ska invita (Feb 5, 2019)

Demo on Lambeth bridge tomorrow (Wednesday) from 5pm iirc. Over the latest batch of deportations.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 5, 2019)

Windrush row over criminal deportation flight

Twane Morgan the soldier pictured has apparently been given a reprieve and pulled from that flight because of his profile being raised. Who is to say that others on that flight are not being fucked over just because they don't have the same profile.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Windrush row over criminal deportation flight
> 
> Twane Morgan the e soldier pictured has apparently been given a reprieve and pulled from that flight because of his profile being raised. Who is to say that others on that flight are not being fucked over just because they don't have the same profile.


My thoughts exactly


----------



## ska invita (Feb 5, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Demo on Lambeth bridge tomorrow (Wednesday) from 5pm iirc. Over the latest batch of deportations.


It's at 8am!


----------



## zahir (Feb 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Windrush row over criminal deportation flight
> 
> Twane Morgan the soldier pictured has apparently been given a reprieve and pulled from that flight because of his profile being raised. Who is to say that others on that flight are not being fucked over just because they don't have the same profile.


Also this.


----------



## zahir (Feb 6, 2019)

Key witnesses to detainee death to be deported before they can testify


> It has now emerged that two of the men due to be on the flight are key witnesses in the inquest into the death of Carlington Spencer, a 38-year-old Jamaican man who died in Morton Hall Immigration Removal Centre, Lincolnshire, in 2017.
> 
> On Monday, the coroner for Lincolnshire issued a summons for Christopher Richards, 47, and Joseph Nembhard, 37, to attend a pre-inquest review on 11 March. But the Home Office has not indicated it will halt their deportation so they can attend.
> 
> The two men told _The Independent _they believed the Home Office was intentionally trying to move witnesses ahead of the inquest into the death of their friend. They said they had “strong evidence” that his death could have been prevented.


----------



## not a trot (Feb 6, 2019)

zahir said:


> Key witnesses to detainee death to be deported before they can testify



Can this government sink any lower ?

Yes it fucking can and will.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 6, 2019)

zahir said:


> Key witnesses to detainee death to be deported before they can testify




For now...

At least seven men due to be deported to Jamaica granted last-minute reprieve

Six Jamaican detainees given last-minute deportation reprieve


----------



## ska invita (Feb 6, 2019)

I think this relates to this current charter plane:


----------



## CRI (Feb 7, 2019)

Moment 'convict flight' deporting 35 Brits to Jamaica leaves Birmingham


----------



## GarveyLives (Feb 10, 2019)

​


----------



## GarveyLives (Feb 17, 2019)

My patient avoided NHS treatment for three years because he didn’t want to become another Windrush scandal victim


----------



## GarveyLives (Mar 7, 2019)

Windrush scandal victims _still_ homeless and being betrayed by Home Office, damning report warns


----------



## GarveyLives (Mar 22, 2019)

Now _this_:

Communities across the country given £500,000 to commemorate Windrush Generation

... from the same people who brought you _this_:

Windrush generation: Government combined deportation threats with arrival anniversary celebrations


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 2, 2019)

Home Office condemned over decision to exclude scores of Windrush victims from compensation scheme launch


----------



## GarveyLives (Apr 28, 2019)

Even after a year of stories about this outrage, they are no less shocking to hear:



> _"The fear that there would be a knock at the door any time telling you to leave the only country you’ve known since childhood, sounds like something from a nightmare ..."_



How a man who lived in Croydon was nearly deported in the Windrush scandal


----------



## GarveyLives (May 1, 2019)

Meanwhile ...

MPs refer Home Office to equalities watchdog over Windrush scandal


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 18, 2019)

Javid'll fix it eh? 

"I shouldn't have to prove I am British": A Preston mum describes the moment she was told she was not a British citizen

This popped up on my radar this morning...Left me wondering how many more could be affected by this. This woman is the grandchild of Windrush parents. Her own mother (a child of Windrush) came to the UK as a child to join her parents who had come over previously. The technicality in this case is that although she was born here and her father is White English/born here because he isn't listed him on her birth certificate she is seen to have her mother's nationality.

What a shit show.


----------



## teqniq (May 18, 2019)

I am at a complete loss to explain to myself or anyone else how the Home Office operates. I know two guys from Eritrea who have just got five year's leave to remain and deservedly so as far as I can tell, and provided they don't engage in any criminal activities and get caught this will turn into indefinite leave to remain. They are now entitled to apply to get their families over here which they are doing. Yet the above is happening to long-term residents of the UK, born and bought up here. What the fuck?


----------



## ska invita (May 18, 2019)

teqniq said:


> I am at a complete loss to explain to myself or anyone else how the Home Office operates. I know two guys from Eritrea who have just got five year's leave to remain and deservedly so as far as I can tell, and provided they don't engage in any criminal activities and get caught this will turn into indefinite leave to remain. They are now entitled to apply to get their families over here which they are doing. Yet the above is happening to long-term residents of the UK, born and bought up here. What the fuck?


Hostility isnt rational, its about creating a culture of fear and unwelcomingness...Incidents of unfairness serve a purpose I guess


----------



## GarveyLives (May 19, 2019)

Please circulate to those affected:

*Windrush engagement event:  Nottingham*

Thursday 23 May 2019 from 1pm to 3pm

Pilgrim Church
Queens Walk
The Meadows
Nottingham
NG2 2DF


----------



## GarveyLives (May 26, 2019)

An internationally recognisable 'Child of Windrush' has moved on:






*Rest in Peace*​
How Keith Anderson endured poverty to become Lord's regular


----------



## GarveyLives (Jun 8, 2019)

A further indication of HM Govenrment's 'sorrow' over this scandal:

​


----------



## GarveyLives (Jun 9, 2019)

Lest We Forget:

David Cameron: The prime mover behind Britain’s hostile environment, who escaped the blame






*"While Theresa May is seen as the sole architect behind the ‘dehumanising’ policy, ex-ministers detail how the coalition prime minister was its driving force"*​


----------



## GarveyLives (Jun 22, 2019)

Windrush victim, former Middlesex bowler *Richard Stewart*, dies with no apology or compensation


----------



## GarveyLives (Jun 27, 2019)

It is possible that the final report may never see the light of day, or if it does, it will have been subject to whitewashing?:

_



			"The Home Office has been accused of being reckless and of failing in their legal duty to counter racial discrimination – by a Home Office commissioned review – into the Windrush scandal ..."
		
Click to expand...

_Windrush Scandal: Home Office ‘reckless’ and ‘defensive’, leaked review finds

​


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2019)

Shameless cunts


----------



## Anju (Jul 1, 2019)

This is fantastic. Makes me sad, angry and happy all at the same time.


----------



## GarveyLives (Jul 4, 2019)

_Glasgow-born_ jazz singer given 14 days to leave the country by Home Office


----------



## GarveyLives (Jul 11, 2019)

For information to anyone affected:


----------



## GarveyLives (Aug 10, 2019)

For information to anyone affected (or interested):





Listen here:  The Voices of Windrush - Well-being of survivors, 8 August 2019


----------



## GarveyLives (Aug 11, 2019)

Some of Leeds' 'Windrush Generation' ancestors will be remembered in this exhibition:


----------



## GarveyLives (Aug 20, 2019)

For information:


----------



## teqniq (Sep 18, 2019)

Chased into 'self-deportation': the most disturbing Windrush case so far


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Chased into 'self-deportation': the most disturbing Windrush case so far



I know someones Uncle from the Carribbean who had similar problem. Cost him three thousand in lawyers plus couldn't work legally until he to sorted it out.

As my Black British friend said the Tory party is racist. Also anyone who votes for Farage is a racist.

Three things from the article. The large amount of public support the then Home Office minister May go home immigration vans got.

Second how Rudd and May who both were responsible for the hostile environment tried to make out it wasn't anything to do with them.

What this Windrush issue has shown is that nasty anti immigrant views never went away.

What happens is that when shown the effects the target changes. Was chatting to someone at work. He now thinks that Windrush deportations / threats of deportations was a mistake. But all these east european criminals and gypsy beggars coming here should go.

My only concern with the article is the emphasis on how hard working and law abiding they were. Its almost falling into the trap of dividing immigrants between the worthy and unworthy.


----------



## GarveyLives (Sep 23, 2019)

For information:


----------



## GarveyLives (Sep 28, 2019)

For information:


----------



## GarveyLives (Oct 4, 2019)

A care home is calling for people to attend the funeral of *Oswald Dixon*, a _100-year-old_ World War Two veteran from Jamaica - one of several thousand people from the Caribbean who fought for Britain in that conflict - with no known relatives in the UK ...

An RAF veteran with no family has died aged 100 - you are invited to salute him at his funeral






(Source: Broughton House)

*The Late Oswald Dixon

For further details about the funeral at Agecroft Cemetery and Crematorium in Salford on Wednesday 9 October 2019, contact Co-op Funeralcare on 0161 736 1487.*​


----------



## GarveyLives (Oct 9, 2019)

Earlier today:

He left Jamaica to fight Nazi Germany and today hundreds rallied to honour the 'forgotten' RAF veteran








(Source: as stated in image)​


----------



## GarveyLives (Oct 16, 2019)

Windrush generation: Photos that lay undeveloped for over 50 years






(Source: Howard Grey)

*If only they'd known what they were letting themselves in for.*​


----------



## GarveyLives (Nov 1, 2019)

The reality behind government press releases:

BAME elderly lose dedicated day centre in Lewisham


----------



## GarveyLives (Dec 4, 2019)

Another tragedy behind this tragedy:



​

Appeal:  Hubert Howard funeral


----------



## GarveyLives (Dec 17, 2019)

The insult continues:



> _"The recipient of one of the first Windrush compensation offers has said she plans to turn it down, describing the government’s offer as insultingly low because *it covers only a year’s loss of earnings even though she was out of work for a decade* ..."_



Windrush victim rejects 'insulting' offer of £22,000 payout

Windrush compensation ‘breadcrumbs for peasants’ says victim


----------



## GarveyLives (Dec 19, 2019)




----------



## GarveyLives (Jan 17, 2020)

For information:

The Black Cultural Archives are hosting a public meeting for all those affected by the Windrush Scandal at Lambeth Town Hall on Saturday 18 January 2020.


----------



## GarveyLives (Jan 22, 2020)

For information:


----------



## GarveyLives (Jan 24, 2020)

For information:


----------



## ska invita (Feb 4, 2020)

Another deportation plane bound for JA  next Wednesday with some 50 people booked on it 

The new normal


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 10, 2020)




----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 10, 2020)

Just heard that at least half of the people on the flight have cases to be reviewed given the 'lesson learned' report should not even be in detention anyway.

FFS!


----------



## teqniq (Feb 10, 2020)

Someone fucked right up there.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 10, 2020)

teqniq said:


> Someone fucked right up there.


the electorate


----------



## IC3D (Feb 10, 2020)

No one seems to be taking these cases on merit and given the numbers pretty insulting that there is no reprieve for those that have every right to moving on and continuing with their lives in the UK.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 10, 2020)

The hostile environment continues. Can we deport Boris? He was born elsewhere and a fucking criminal afterall.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 10, 2020)

not all criminal elements are created equal Rutita1


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 10, 2020)




----------



## ska invita (Feb 10, 2020)




----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 10, 2020)




----------



## ska invita (Feb 10, 2020)

so if some poor fucker had a working sim they're gone?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 11, 2020)

ska invita said:


> so if some poor fucker had a working sim they're gone?


Looks like it. Those that were held at Brook House aren't covered by the court ruling.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 11, 2020)

More detail here









						Jamaica deportation: Home Office flight leaves UK despite court ruling
					

A plane carrying 17 convicted offenders takes off but a court order stops 25 others being deported.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## GarveyLives (Feb 26, 2020)

GarveyLives said:


> For information:





> _"The strong response to a letter from Lambeth council urging residents to claim under the Windrush Compensation Scheme meant *supplies of a special form temporarily ran out* ..."_



Big demand for Windrush compensation scheme


----------



## GarveyLives (Feb 27, 2020)

Further fallout from the 'hostile environment:

Black women scared to report domestic abuse in case Home Office deports them






(Picture: Susannah Ireland)​*"Ngozi Headley-Fulani, who runs Sistah Space, an unfunded domestic violence charity in Hackney, says the Windrush scandal and recent reports of mass-deportations to the Caribbean are trapping women in violent and abusive relationships."*


----------



## GarveyLives (Mar 19, 2020)

The questions that the Windrush report _must_ answer






*I'm sure we can't wait to hear her answers.*​


----------



## teqniq (Jun 12, 2020)

I wonder if anything will come of this? The cynic in me says no, but the optimist is ever-hopeful.









						Equalities watchdog to investigate hostile environment policy
					

Home Office measures that caused Windrush scandal potentially breached equality law, says EHRC




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2020)

On a related note. Why on earth would you put this in Waterloo and not Brixton? Lambeth urges Home Secretary to restore faith in the government – by bringing Windrush memorial ‘home’ to Brixton


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 15, 2020)

This article (from last Wednesday's Guardian) by Amelia Gentleman succeeded in increasing my contmpt for the Home Office even further, as if that was possible 



			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> *The Windrush generation deserves justice – not video chats with the home secretary*



The timing of Priti Patel's 'offer to talk' was transparent! 

And one aspect I never knew about was this :




			
				Amelia Gentleman said:
			
		

> The hostile environment policies introduced new levels of spite into society; the government set up the *National Allegations Database*, designed to make it easier for people to make tip-offs about immigration offenders to the Home Office.



"National Allegations Database"? What the actual fuck?  
Might as well have called it the 'anonymous racists -- feel free shop your neighbours with nonsense gossip you've heard in the street/down the pub' database :rolleyed:


----------



## GarveyLives (Jun 22, 2020)

*Happy National Windrush Day!*

Windrush: 'Grave risk' of scandal repeat, warns review author

Windrush lawyer Jacqueline McKenzie: 'The Home Office is treating people with contempt'







​


----------



## teqniq (Jun 22, 2020)




----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 22, 2020)

Here's yet another dreadful story  :
[Very belated ETA  to add link to this story  ]



			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> * 'I feel targeted': Windrush victim decries compensation delays as racism *
> *Former soldier of 13 years’ service left destitute and humiliated by Home Office policy*






			
				Interview said:
			
		

> “I gave the youngest part of my life to the Queen and country, and I’ve been treated like a piece of crap by the government and the Ministry of Defence. The worst thing is when politicians say they are sorry, and they understand what we went through. They don’t understand. They’ve weakened that word, sorry,” he said. “I was so broke that I didn’t buy a bed for this flat until last year. I still don’t have carpets or curtains because I can’t afford them, and I don’t use the heating. I had to sell my computer and my bike. It was really humiliating.”
> Williams had never had a British passport. He travelled during his army service in Cyprus, Germany and Belize on a Jamaican passport which he had lost some years earlier ....
> .... “They [his then employer] asked me to leave the premises and wouldn’t pay me for the month of work. That was a kick in the nuts,” he said.
> When he tried to sort things out with the jobcentre, he was told that “as far as they were concerned, I was a person from another country. They decided I had no right to benefits.” He had a small army pension of £120 a month, but for the first year until he got some support from the council he struggled to juggle council tax, rent and utility bills. He received a series of eviction notices.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 24, 2020)

Patel had now agreed to implement the recommendations of the Wendy Williams report in full.
Yeah right. I won't hold my breath..


----------



## Humberto (Jun 24, 2020)

'Try to find lodgings?' Evil vermin.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2020)

And still the disgraceful hostile environment causing problems for both children of Windrush and anybody else 

Windrush lawyer Jacqueline McKenzie: 'The Home Office is treating people with contempt'








						Windrush lawyer Jacqueline McKenzie: 'The Home Office is treating people with contempt'
					

The lawyer representing 200 victims of the Windrush scandal says systemic racism is at the root of the problem




					www.theguardian.com
				




That Clayton Barnes is still not a citizen shows the ongoing cruelty of ‘hostile environment’








						That Clayton Barnes is still not a citizen shows the ongoing cruelty of ‘hostile environment’ | Kenan Malik
					

Just how long will it take for the lessons of Windrush to be learned?




					www.theguardian.com
				




Windrush: at least five who applied for compensation die before receiving it








						Windrush: at least five who applied for compensation die before receiving it
					

Figure revealed by home secretary highlights concerns about slowness of compensation scheme




					www.theguardian.com
				




London-born twins face deportation to different countries








						London-born twins face deportation to different countries
					

Exclusive: Darrell and Darren Roberts face deportation to countries they have never visited




					www.theguardian.com
				




Worth checking BBC Two - The Secret Windrush Files that was broadcast a few weeks ago now. Explores that the groundwork for a 'hostile environment' goes back way further than just May - back to concerns starting at Atlee's government, through Churchill, MacMillan, Heath, to the present day.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2020)

And another:









						Bumi Thomas: the Glasgow-born singer given two weeks to leave the country
					

Despite living much of her life in the UK, the jazz musician became a victim of the hostile environment policy. She talks about her fight to remain – and strengthening her roots




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Humberto (Jul 8, 2020)

Find lodgings in less deadly areas?


----------



## Humberto (Jul 8, 2020)

I'd hang them all for that cruel insult.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 8, 2020)

Do Gove first, fuck it Priti Patel too


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 23, 2020)

Paulette Wilson has died suddenly - only 64. Was appallingly treated 









						Paulette Wilson: Windrush campaigner who faced deportation dies aged 64
					

Paulette Wilson was one of thousands affected by the scandal and has been hailed an "inspiration".



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## GarveyLives (Jul 24, 2020)

*Paulette Wilson*: 'a precious gem … _broken by the UK government_'

Death Of Windrush Campaigner *Paulette Wilson* Sparks Outpouring Of Grief And Anger
















(Source: BBC)

*Paulette Wilson*

*Rest In Peace*​


----------



## GarveyLives (Sep 4, 2020)

Hundreds of mourners gathered to pay their respects to 'Windrush champion' *Paulette Wilson* at her funeral today:

Wolverhampton marks life of Windrush campaigner Paulette Wilson










*Rest In Power*​


----------



## GarveyLives (Sep 17, 2020)

Forthcoming ...


----------



## GarveyLives (Nov 3, 2020)

GarveyLives said:


> The questions that the Windrush report _must_ answer
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This seems to be her answer:



> _"The Home Office has failed to make adequate progress in reviewing its hostile environment policies and must swiftly prove that it is not *merely paying “lip service” to the idea of reform*, the author of a damning report into the Windrush scandal has told MPs ..."_



Windrush report author attacks Home Office's response

And:



> _"At least *nine people have died* before receiving money applied for through the Windrush compensation scheme, according to Home Office figures ..."_



Windrush: At least nine victims _died_ before getting compensation




*"I am driving change to implement the important findings of the Lessons Learned review to make sure nothing like this can happen again.

The action I have taken will ensure cultural change at the department, leading to more diverse leadership.

I want the Windrush generation to have no doubt that I will reform the culture of the department so it better represents all of the communities we serve."*

(Source:  Government public relations statement "Priti Patel takes action to implement Windrush recommendations", 21 July 2020


----------



## teqniq (Dec 2, 2020)




----------



## Humberto (Dec 2, 2020)

Must be terrifying. What kind of scale are we seeing with these deportations? Can't even see what benefit it is to anybody. Inhumane, bureaucratic meanness it looks like. We are talking people who have been settled here in the UK for years and have paid taxes, worked and even have families and children here? Just put on a plane and made to go? Madness. Shameful.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 30, 2021)

Bump!


'We' are still fucked if the Tories are allowed to move socially rightwards. We are seeing lifelong British citizens being deported on bureaucratic technicalities. People with no other home to go to. Come on; if you've lived in Britain since
you are a child you clearly belong here. The technicality which sees allies, heroes and our own people disregarded is shameful and embarrasing, As well as terribly traumatic for those affected.


----------



## GarveyLives (May 20, 2021)

GarveyLives said:


> The questions that the Windrush report _must_ answer
> 
> 
> 
> ...





This seems to be her latest answer:



> _"The Home Office has revealed that *21 people have died* while waiting for Windrush compensation claims to be paid, amid continuing concern that *the scheme is taking too long to make payments to elderly people affected by the scandal* ..."_



Windrush scandal: 21 people have *died* before receiving compensation


----------



## teqniq (May 20, 2021)

I surmise that it is entirely deliberate.


----------



## GarveyLives (May 21, 2021)

GarveyLives said:


> The questions that the Windrush report _must_ answer
> 
> 
> 
> ...






> _"When the Home Office launched the scheme in April 2019, it estimated it might pay out compensation worth between *£120 million and £310 million to 15,000 people* ...
> 
> To the end of March 2021, the Home Office *had paid £14.3 million to 633 people*."_



(Source: "Investigation into the Windrush Compensation Scheme", National Audit Office, today) 





​


----------



## ska invita (May 21, 2021)




----------



## GarveyLives (Jun 8, 2021)

GarveyLives said:


> This seems to be her latest answer:
> 
> Windrush scandal: 21 people have *died* before receiving compensation



With National Windrush Day rapidly approaching, a timely reminder of the Government's record from this evening's Channel Four news:


​


----------



## GarveyLives (Jun 22, 2021)

GarveyLives said:


> Hundreds of mourners gathered to pay their respects to 'Windrush champion' *Paulette Wilson* at her funeral today:
> 
> Wolverhampton marks life of Windrush campaigner Paulette Wilson
> 
> ...





Lest We Forget:

*Paulette Wilson*: Late Windrush campaigner to be honoured with blue plaque


----------



## GarveyLives (Oct 5, 2021)

GarveyLives said:


> This seems to be her answer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Meanwhile ...

Windrush activists ‘disgusted’ after being _turned away at Tory conference_


----------



## GarveyLives (Nov 24, 2021)

GarveyLives said:


> The questions that the Windrush report _must_ answer
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This seems to be her answer:

Home Office should be stripped of responsibility for compensating Windrush victims, MPs say

‘It’s painful’: Windrush victims _waiting years for compensation haven’t received a penny_

Windrush survivor: Will we get government compensation _before we die_?


​


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2021)

GarveyLives said:


> With National Windrush Day rapidly approaching, a timely reminder of the Government's record from this evening's Channel Four news:
> 
> 
> ​



That's truly shocking. Heart-breaking. They brought him here to be a 'productive unit' and then cast him aside later. The Govt should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 25, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> That's truly shocking. Heart-breaking. They brought him here to be a 'productive unit' and then cast him aside later. The Govt should be ashamed of themselves.


They have no shame.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 6, 2022)

Please sign and share:









						Citizenship is a right, not a privilege
					

Sign the petition if you agree that citizenship is a right, not a privilege




					actions.goodlawproject.org


----------



## GarveyLives (Mar 30, 2022)

GarveyLives said:


> This seems to be her answer:
> 
> Home Office should be stripped of responsibility for compensating Windrush victims, MPs say
> 
> ...





Dear Priti Patel… _primary school kids_ write to Home Sec demanding justice for Windrush victims – _and she ignores them_







(Source:  Kingfisher Hall Primary Academy)

*Learning how white supremacy works the hard way.*​


----------



## GarveyLives (Jun 23, 2022)

*"This is a monument to unforgivable political illiteracy and an entrenched colonial mindset. What’s more, it is a monument to state racism, hypocrisy and hubris"*






























Why I won’t be attending the unveiling ceremony for the National Windrush Monument - Professor Gus John

The Windrush statue is offensive – no wonder people are boycotting it


Lest We Forget:

2018: Windrush generation: Government combined deportation threats with arrival anniversary celebrations


----------



## GarveyLives (Jul 27, 2022)

GarveyLives said:


> Another tragedy behind this tragedy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





*The Late Hubert Howard*, who travelled to Britain in 1960 when aged three as part of the 'Windrush generation' was “shamefully treated” because he could not get “formal documentation of his immigration status”, three Court of Appeal judges have said.

Despite this, the Court of Appeal upheld a Home Office appeal against an earlier decision that refusal of The Late Mr Howard’s application for naturalisation had been unlawful:

Man who was part of Windrush generation ‘shamefully treated’ – judges






(Source: hackney.gov.uk) ​
*“Shamefully treated” The Late Hubert Howard died on 12 November 2019, just four weeks after finally being granted British citizenship, 59 years after he arrived in London, and without compensation or apology from the Government. He had been trying for 12 years to establish his right to live and work in the UK.*


----------



## teqniq (Sep 17, 2022)

Why am I not surprised? Disgusting nevertheless:









						Windrush compensation scheme ‘not fit for purpose’ as only 1% of appeals successful
					

Exclusive: Just 42 of the 3,479 appeals last year were successful, new figures show




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## teqniq (Dec 7, 2022)

Fucking hell:   









						Windrush victim granted right to remain in UK after 10-year battle
					

Roy Harrison slept in bin shed and lost partner and business after being charged with crime he says he didn’t commit




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Dec 7, 2022)

teqniq said:


> Fucking hell:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is fucking appalling.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 7, 2022)

Yup.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 9, 2022)

Cunts.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 7, 2023)

What a fucking surprise:









						Suella Braverman plans to ditch key Windrush pledges
					

Exclusive: UK government set to implement hardline commitments to fast-track detention and removal of migrants




					www.theguardian.com


----------

