Windrush crisis

slowmart

David Lammy, Passionate, Authentic and so so powerful concerning the Windrush scandal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPvHe3M4GdA

Corbyn should be ashamed for not stepping on the neck of HMG to bring this issue to a head earlier.

As for May and Rudd, words fail me, they really do. I look at every senior minister, Defence, Home Secretary, Health, Foreign Secretary and PM and i have to question myself , is this the best we have?

Is Windrush a symptom of our society or does it shine yet another light on how unfit the Tories are to govern? It's not just about the Tories as it amplifies the vacuum we have in Parliament to hold the Tories to account and it takes a back bencher to eloquently and effectively demolish the Home Secretary.

ballysmate

Slowmart wrote:

David Lammy, Passionate, Authentic and so so powerful concerning the Windrush scandal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPvHe3M4GdA

Corbyn should be ashamed for not stepping on the neck of HMG to bring this issue to a head earlier.

As for May and Rudd, words fail me, they really do. I look at every senior minister, Defence, Home Secretary, Health, Foreign Secretary and PM and i have to question myself , is this the best we have?

Is Windrush a symptom of our society or does it shine yet another light on how unfit the Tories are to govern? It's not just about the Tories as it amplifies the vacuum we have in Parliament to hold the Tories to account and it takes a back bencher to eloquently and effectively demolish the Home Secretary.

If you look across the chamber, the sad fact is that the answer is 'Yes'.

lostboysaint

Ballysmate wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

David Lammy, Passionate, Authentic and so so powerful concerning the Windrush scandal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPvHe3M4GdA

Corbyn should be ashamed for not stepping on the neck of HMG to bring this issue to a head earlier.

As for May and Rudd, words fail me, they really do. I look at every senior minister, Defence, Home Secretary, Health, Foreign Secretary and PM and i have to question myself , is this the best we have?

Is Windrush a symptom of our society or does it shine yet another light on how unfit the Tories are to govern? It's not just about the Tories as it amplifies the vacuum we have in Parliament to hold the Tories to account and it takes a back bencher to eloquently and effectively demolish the Home Secretary.

If you look across the chamber, the sad fact is that the answer is 'Yes'.

Nobody in the House has done themselves any favours in this dealing with this. And yes, it's a sad indictment of British politics when you look at both sides of the house and wonder how much further we've got to fall before the voters will stop just looking at the colour of the rosette and actually start trying to find some principled MPs that will actually stand up for their constituency and their beliefs rather than just follow the whip.

capt_slog

lostboysaint wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

David Lammy, Passionate, Authentic and so so powerful concerning the Windrush scandal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPvHe3M4GdA

Corbyn should be ashamed for not stepping on the neck of HMG to bring this issue to a head earlier.

As for May and Rudd, words fail me, they really do. I look at every senior minister, Defence, Home Secretary, Health, Foreign Secretary and PM and i have to question myself , is this the best we have?

Is Windrush a symptom of our society or does it shine yet another light on how unfit the Tories are to govern? It's not just about the Tories as it amplifies the vacuum we have in Parliament to hold the Tories to account and it takes a back bencher to eloquently and effectively demolish the Home Secretary.

If you look across the chamber, the sad fact is that the answer is 'Yes'.

Nobody in the House has done themselves any favours in this dealing with this. And yes, it's a sad indictment of British politics when you look at both sides of the house and wonder how much further we've got to fall before the voters will stop just looking at the colour of the rosette and actually start trying to find some principled MPs that will actually stand up for their constituency and their beliefs rather than just follow the whip.

yup.

This pathetic 'football club' type of support for 'your' party is the reason I've got no time for any of it.

rick_chasey

Are plenty of problems with Lammy, but he's an MP who's very clear on what he believes, where his ideology will place him on issues, and looks after the interests of both his local constituents and the rest of the UK.

You can disagree with him on plenty, but at least with him you know precisely what you're getting when you vote for him.

I guess it's easy from the backbench to put political expediency to one side; something Corbyn is probably discovering.

Anyway, I thought the speech was a good 8/10. Could have done without calling for the resignation afterwards; it's not up to the opposition to call for resignations, since if it were up to them they'd have the entire opposing cabinet resign every day.

rick_chasey

And yes, this hostile environment has been bubbling away as a problem for a while.

It started under May, and the only thing she's every been consistent on is her keenness with getting immigration down, at the expense of decency.

I don't see why we necessarily draw the distinction between Windrush and not; plenty of non-Windrush have had the same bad treatment. I guess this is politically easier to handle.

The worry re Brexit is is that the issue this windrush crisis highlights mirrors the likely issue of EU27 residents in the UK. They have also arrived without paperwork, since they do not need it.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

And yes, this hostile environment has been bubbling away as a problem for a while.

It started under May, and the only thing she's every been consistent on is her keenness with getting immigration down, at the expense of decency.

I don't see why we necessarily draw the distinction between Windrush and not; plenty of non-Windrush have had the same bad treatment. I guess this is politically easier to handle.

The worry re Brexit is is that the issue this windrush crisis highlights mirrors the likely issue of EU27 residents in the UK. They have also arrived without paperwork, since they do not need it.

Surely the indignation is restricted to Windrush (presumably because they were invited/encouraged to come here), I certainly don't remember any indignation when it was announced that these traps were being set to catch-out illegal immigrants.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And yes, this hostile environment has been bubbling away as a problem for a while.

It started under May, and the only thing she's every been consistent on is her keenness with getting immigration down, at the expense of decency.

I don't see why we necessarily draw the distinction between Windrush and not; plenty of non-Windrush have had the same bad treatment. I guess this is politically easier to handle.

The worry re Brexit is is that the issue this windrush crisis highlights mirrors the likely issue of EU27 residents in the UK. They have also arrived without paperwork, since they do not need it.

Surely the indignation is restricted to Windrush (presumably because they were invited/encouraged to come here), I certainly don't remember any indignation when it was announced that these traps were being set to catch-out illegal immigrants.

I was, and people in my social circle were.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water and all that.

I think the entire premise of a state bureaucracy creating a "hostile environment" is fundamentally wrong.

Bureaucracy shouldn't be hostile. That's not its place, and it's usually done for nefarious reasons.

If illegal immigration is a genuine issue (and i'm quite sceptical it is a pressing issue), then surely it is about better policing? Improving connections and relations with neighbourhoods where they will likely end up; better co-operation with other states to stem the flow earlier. Working with other states and training the police to clamp down on traffickers, etc.

rjsterry

I thought one of the most telling bits of information was that the HO had no idea how many people they had deported in error. Not just didn't have the information to hand, but couldn't establish it after looking for the data.

And we 9supposed to believe they are capable of controlling immigration?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And yes, this hostile environment has been bubbling away as a problem for a while.

It started under May, and the only thing she's every been consistent on is her keenness with getting immigration down, at the expense of decency.

I don't see why we necessarily draw the distinction between Windrush and not; plenty of non-Windrush have had the same bad treatment. I guess this is politically easier to handle.

The worry re Brexit is is that the issue this windrush crisis highlights mirrors the likely issue of EU27 residents in the UK. They have also arrived without paperwork, since they do not need it.

Surely the indignation is restricted to Windrush (presumably because they were invited/encouraged to come here), I certainly don't remember any indignation when it was announced that these traps were being set to catch-out illegal immigrants.

I was, and people in my social circle were.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water and all that.

I think the entire premise of a state bureaucracy creating a "hostile environment" is fundamentally wrong.

Bureaucracy shouldn't be hostile. That's not its place, and it's usually done for nefarious reasons.

If illegal immigration is a genuine issue (and i'm quite sceptical it is a pressing issue), then surely it is about better policing? Improving connections and relations with neighbourhoods where they will likely end up; better co-operation with other states to stem the flow earlier. Working with other states and training the police to clamp down on traffickers, etc.

I really don't think you are going to get that genie back in the bottle.

As a way of implementng a policy t makes sense. The problem (easily solvable) is that the records these people need are not digitised.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As a way of implementng a policy t makes sense. The problem (easily solvable) is that the records these people need are not digitised.

You think digitising school records from the 50s and 60s is easy? There's other solutions.

The problem the home office has is policy being passed down from ministers, and a belief that entry to the UK is a privilege rather something that benefits the UK e.g. the fact that a billionaire Asia tourist needs to send his/her passport to Manila for three weeks for the privilege of spending a fortune in the UK.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And yes, this hostile environment has been bubbling away as a problem for a while.

It started under May, and the only thing she's every been consistent on is her keenness with getting immigration down, at the expense of decency.

I don't see why we necessarily draw the distinction between Windrush and not; plenty of non-Windrush have had the same bad treatment. I guess this is politically easier to handle.

The worry re Brexit is is that the issue this windrush crisis highlights mirrors the likely issue of EU27 residents in the UK. They have also arrived without paperwork, since they do not need it.

Surely the indignation is restricted to Windrush (presumably because they were invited/encouraged to come here), I certainly don't remember any indignation when it was announced that these traps were being set to catch-out illegal immigrants.

I was, and people in my social circle were.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water and all that.

I think the entire premise of a state bureaucracy creating a "hostile environment" is fundamentally wrong.

Bureaucracy shouldn't be hostile. That's not its place, and it's usually done for nefarious reasons.

If illegal immigration is a genuine issue (and i'm quite sceptical it is a pressing issue), then surely it is about better policing? Improving connections and relations with neighbourhoods where they will likely end up; better co-operation with other states to stem the flow earlier. Working with other states and training the police to clamp down on traffickers, etc.

I really don't think you are going to get that genie back in the bottle.

As a way of implementng a policy t makes sense. The problem (easily solvable) is that the records these people need are not digitised.

I'm not sure there are records, digitised or otherwise. As a foundation for deciding who is or isn't entitled to live and work here, it is a complete farce.

This is before we broach the subject of government IT projects.

TheBigBean

Although I should add that the home office has done an excellent job of monetising people's impatience and need for their passport. If you prefer to not wait months for your visa, you can pay £610 for the privilege of 6 hours or so of utter tedium in Croydon or £10,500 for someone to come and visit you. That's on top the visa fee of course.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I really don't think you are going to get that genie back in the bottle.

As a way of implementng a policy t makes sense. The problem (easily solvable) is that the records these people need are not digitised.

Does the whole "hostile environment" make sense. Or is it a policy that will catch out/inconvenience the innocent, whilst possibly not being a great disincentive against those who are genuinely here illegally (who will just continue existing underground).

All for what? Something that isn't a concrete problem anyway.

Digitising records that go back to the 50s and 60s isn't exactly a trivial task.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

I thought one of the most telling bits of information was that the HO had no idea how many people they had deported in error. Not just didn't have the information to hand, but couldn't establish it after looking for the data.

And we 9supposed to believe they are capable of controlling immigration?

Turns out they might have destroyed the data they did have in 2010 in May's first year as home secretary.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ex-staffer

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As a way of implementng a policy t makes sense. The problem (easily solvable) is that the records these people need are not digitised.

You think digitising school records from the 50s and 60s is easy? There's other solutions.

The problem the home office has is policy being passed down from ministers, and a belief that entry to the UK is a privilege rather something that benefits the UK e.g. the fact that a billionaire Asia tourist needs to send his/her passport to Manila for three weeks for the privilege of spending a fortune in the UK.

I meant exclude people who have no way of proving when they got here or went to school here

orraloon

But we're Taking Back Control.

Apparently.

pblakeney

orraloon wrote:

But we're Taking Back Control.

Apparently.

A lot of the people I know who voted that way are perfectly happy with the situation. :roll:

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As a way of implementng a policy t makes sense. The problem (easily solvable) is that the records these people need are not digitised.

You think digitising school records from the 50s and 60s is easy? There's other solutions.

The problem the home office has is policy being passed down from ministers, and a belief that entry to the UK is a privilege rather something that benefits the UK e.g. the fact that a billionaire Asia tourist needs to send his/her passport to Manila for three weeks for the privilege of spending a fortune in the UK.

I meant exclude people who have no way of proving when they got here or went to school here

That's precisely the point, these are people who have no way of proving to the satisfaction of the immigration service when they arrived in this country (because the records have been destroyed) and they have no way of accessing those few decades-old school records that still exist. There is no way to centralise and digitise records that no longer exist.

tailwindhome

rick_chasey

Turns out May was fibbing at PMQs around dates.


On its own destroying the papers isn’t a shocker.

It is when you combine it with the “hostile” immigration policy of 2014.

Fairly sure these potential problems were highlighted then.

By my own party, no less.

Not that anyone listens, obviously.

secretsam

Rick Chasey wrote:

Turns out May was fibbing at PMQs around dates.


On its own destroying the papers isn’t a shocker.

It is when you combine it with the “hostile” immigration policy of 2014.

Fairly sure these potential problems were highlighted then.

By my own party, no less.

Not that anyone listens, obviously.

Destroying the papers without archiving them electronically was plain daft. Symptomatic of the Tories' slash and burn approach to cuts.

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status ... 9912008704

Jeremy Corbyn@jeremycorbyn

The Immigration Bill has a very dangerous new clause which allows the Home Secretary to remove citizenship and thus create stateless people.

7:53 am - 30 Jan 2014

pblakeney

Theresa May, 22/10/2013 in the House of Commons.

"Mrs May: I have taken a number of interventions and will now make some progress.

I will set out the elements of the Bill in context. First, the Bill will cut abuse of the appeal process. It will streamline the labyrinthine legal process, which at present allows appeals against 17 different Home Office decisions—17 different opportunities for immigration lawyers to cash in and for immigrants who should not be here to delay their deportation or removal. By limiting the grounds for appeal to four—only those that engage fundamental rights—we will cut that abuse.

Secondly, we will extend the number of non-suspensive appeals so that, where there is no risk of serious and irreversible harm, we can deport first and hear appeals later. We will also end the abuse of article 8. There are some who seem to think that the right to family life should always take precedence over public interest in immigration control and when deporting foreign criminals. The Bill will make the view of Parliament on the issue very clear. Finally, the Bill will clamp down on those who live and work in the UK illegally and take advantage of our public services. That is not fair to the British public and to the legitimate migrants who contribute to our society and economy."

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 2-0001.htm

cycleclinic

It's only a crisis because of the 1981 immigration act. Citizen s of British overseas territories do not have the right to move to the u.k and gain services like they did up until the 70's I think. So if the colonies were made a full part of the u.k and full citizenship rights granted and a retrospective arrangement for citizenship granted for those in UK originally from states that were were British colonies it would be problem solved.vthus us a problem of our own making. French overseas territories are part of France, our are separate and that is the problem.

There was a time were you were a citizen Britain and the commonwealth and people could move freely about but not necessarily rent a room! Later acts of parliament changed that. It's also happening again with Brexit.

florerider

Treating the Windrush generation decently was not a matter of destroying landing cards or not. The landing card argument is a Putin style attempt to deflect from what happened under this administration.

Teresa May as Home Secretary always insisted that no innocent person had anything to fear from her draconian measures. Now we know otherwise. Ever wondered why she had such trouble with the ECJ and human rights law stopping her free hand?

Let them "take control" at your peril, this is about who has unfettered control over you.

surrey_commuter

thecycleclinic wrote:

It's only a crisis because of the 1981 immigration act. Citizen s of British overseas territories do not have the right to move to the u.k and gain services like they did up until the 70's I think. So if the colonies were made a full part of the u.k and full citizenship rights granted and a retrospective arrangement for citizenship granted for those in UK originally from states that were were British colonies it would be problem solved.thus us a problem of our own making. French overseas territories are part of France, our are separate and that is the problem.

There was a time were you were a citizen Britain and the commonwealth and people could move freely about but not necessarily rent a room! Later acts of parliament changed that. It's also happening again with Brexit.

I am not sure there would be widespread support for granting about 2 billion people full UK citizenship rights.

cycleclinic

I did not suggest giving 2 billion people British citizenship. You could give citizenship to those who have been here a while though. It not they can't show council tax bills or other form of residency.

My point is the process problem is brought about by the mess outreach citizenship laws have created and our unequal treatment if residents of overseas territories. Law created this problem law can fix it. Is quite simple. There is right and wrong.

earth

I find it very difficult to believe that someone could destroy these records then proceed to deport people and think they could get away with it. The idea is so ridiculous that only someone certifiably insane could attempt it. If that is not the case then it could only have been done through absolute incompetence or purposely to create a scandal.

surrey_commuter

In the interests of balance it has to be say that creating a hostile environment for immigrants was a very loudly stated policy of the Tories and as they were voted in this could be seen as the will of the people.

The people have history in liking the broad brush strokes of policy but not the detail.

florerider

earth wrote:

I find it very difficult to believe that someone could destroy these records then proceed to deport people and think they could get away with it. The idea is so ridiculous that only someone certifiably insane could attempt it. If that is not the case then it could only have been done through absolute incompetence or purposely to create a scandal.

I would not rule out absolute incompetence, or a typical British jobsworth.