Windrush crisis

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aye.

Honestly though, it's all there if you want to hear it. And it has been for decades.

I really want people to realise this is more than just a specific issue to do with May and Rudd and the specifics around documentation.

It is a reflection of where the UK really is, and has been. If it wasn't this, it was going to to be something else.

You've studied history; this is way older than that and not unique to Britain. It ebbs and flows but wherever the ride is bumpy, someone will exploit the situation by pointing at some other group and blaming them for whatever misfortune it is.

That doesn’t really change anything.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aye.

Honestly though, it's all there if you want to hear it. And it has been for decades.

I really want people to realise this is more than just a specific issue to do with May and Rudd and the specifics around documentation.

It is a reflection of where the UK really is, and has been. If it wasn't this, it was going to to be something else.

You've studied history; this is way older than that and not unique to Britain. It ebbs and flows but wherever the ride is bumpy, someone will exploit the situation by pointing at some other group and blaming them for whatever misfortune it is.

That doesn’t really change anything.

It might change how you look at it. And what you or others might do to guard against it.

rick_chasey

So how would you expect it to change how I see it?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

So how would you expect it to change how I see it?

If you stop seeing it as something specifically wrong with Britain and instead view it as the hijacking of people's fears and insecurities by people who want to gain some form of power over those people, in a way that has been repeated again and again throughout human history and around the world. For a start you then stop viewing half the population as in some way the enemy. At the risk of sounding like a condescending hippy, that's a much better place to be mentally.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

I'm guessing you've not had to administer such checks, then.

No, but I don't think it would be that hard, and I've known a lot of people work illegally. One acquaintance spent 10 years doing it, she was always amazed at the complete disconnect between HMRC and UKVI. One telling her she could not work and the other accepting her tax.

They just turn up with proof they can work in the UK - so passport with appropriate visa. Really not that onerous

No not that onerous in the scheme of things but just one more thing for an SME, and what does it achieve? Has it reduced the number of illegal immigrants or is just an effort to make it look as though something is being done. It's also beside the point. The reason this is a scandal is that this policy was brought in in the knowledge that it would affect a large number of people in spite of their right to remain. They carried on with the policy for years before finally conceding that they have needlessly wrecked people's lives. And only then when foreign prime ministers intervene.

I did not say it was a good idea.

It was though a clearly stated policy that was popular with a large chunk of the population.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

I'm guessing you've not had to administer such checks, then.

No, but I don't think it would be that hard, and I've known a lot of people work illegally. One acquaintance spent 10 years doing it, she was always amazed at the complete disconnect between HMRC and UKVI. One telling her she could not work and the other accepting her tax.

They just turn up with proof they can work in the UK - so passport with appropriate visa. Really not that onerous

No not that onerous in the scheme of things but just one more thing for an SME, and what does it achieve? Has it reduced the number of illegal immigrants or is just an effort to make it look as though something is being done. It's also beside the point. The reason this is a scandal is that this policy was brought in in the knowledge that it would affect a large number of people in spite of their right to remain. They carried on with the policy for years before finally conceding that they have needlessly wrecked people's lives. And only then when foreign prime ministers intervene.

I did not say it was a good idea.

It was though a clearly stated policy that was popular with a large chunk of the population.

I'm not sure that gives the policy much greater legitimacy.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't like to be caught arguing in favour of the current government's immigration policies, but expecting employers to check whether employees have the right to work isn't all that unreasonable. They should, of course, have made more effort to ensure this had no impact on various people including Windrush citizens.

I'm guessing you've not had to administer such checks, then.

No, but I don't think it would be that hard, and I've known a lot of people work illegally. One acquaintance spent 10 years doing it, she was always amazed at the complete disconnect between HMRC and UKVI. One telling her she could not work and the other accepting her tax.

They just turn up with proof they can work in the UK - so passport with appropriate visa. Really not that onerous

No not that onerous in the scheme of things but just one more thing for an SME, and what does it achieve? Has it reduced the number of illegal immigrants or is just an effort to make it look as though something is being done. It's also beside the point. The reason this is a scandal is that this policy was brought in in the knowledge that it would affect a large number of people in spite of their right to remain. They carried on with the policy for years before finally conceding that they have needlessly wrecked people's lives. And only then when foreign prime ministers intervene.

I did not say it was a good idea.

It was though a clearly stated policy that was popular with a large chunk of the population.

I'm not sure that gives the policy much greater legitimacy.

Will of the people?

rjsterry

A bit of a stretch to say that because the government won a general election, a majority of the public wholeheartedly supports every detail of every policy. And it's not as though governments aren't happy to drop or rethink manifesto pledges when it suits them. There was support for reducing overall immigration but how that was achieved is entirely the responsibility of the government. It would be perfectly possible to address genuine illegal immigration without the collateral damage to those who simply lack certain forms of documentary proof. It was also blindingly obvious that this unintended consequence would result from the way they chose to approach it.

TheGardenGnome

Reducing immigration could easily have been achieved prior to the Brexit referendum by setting quotas from non-European countries, however the EU won't cease to meddle in British laws therefore removing that possibility. I like the outside of the box thinking in this issue:

Return to old English- this doesn't just preserve and promote British heritage and culture, but all those immigrants wanting to come here because English is international will avoid this like the plague.

Encourage inflation as this will devalue the value of the pound, the strength of the pound is a strong magnet for immigrants wanting to get more bang for their buck for the effort they put in.

I have more solutions such as posting Farage posters everywhere and giving him more air time (to encourage the hostile environment- the more non-British see him, the more fear they have), I just need the forum to be more receptive of my ideas.

Next up: mandatory English breakfast.

rick_chasey

There does seem to be sustained pressure on this; the story isn't going away.

TheGardenGnome

It's gone from the main pages of the BBC and Daily Mail- articles about football, Royal family bebes, scantily clad women, JC's antisemitism and Trump are popular. Mainstream media have been diverted from the topic very well, I'm impressed how this operation was carried out.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

There does seem to be sustained pressure on this; the story isn't going away.

I find it interesting how stories seem to reach a magic critical mass and then become issues for the mainstream media.

rjsterry

The Migration Observatory estimates that there are up to 55,000 people caught up in this. The compensation and naturalisation process is not going to happen quickly.

Edit: I stand corrected, apparently it's all going to be sorted in a fortnight.

"All Windrush cases will be dealt with within two weeks, a government minister has pledged"

rjsterry

Not sure floundering quite covers it. Yesterday: "no we didn't have deportation targets". This morning: "Oh those targets". This afternoon the targets have been scrapped.

As someone else pointed out, Damian Green resigned for behaving inappropriately with female colleagues, but f*** up several hundred people's lives and you just need to say, "sorry, I didn't mean to."

tailwindhome

Sky News Breaking‏Verified account @SkyNewsBreak · 3h3 hours ago

A poll by @SkyData suggests 25% of people think the impact on the Windrush generation is a price worth paying to discourage illegal immigrants while 54% do not think it is a price worth paying

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

A bit of a stretch to say that because the government won a general election, a majority of the public wholeheartedly supports every detail of every policy. And it's not as though governments aren't happy to drop or rethink manifesto pledges when it suits them. There was support for reducing overall immigration but how that was achieved is entirely the responsibility of the government. It would be perfectly possible to address genuine illegal immigration without the collateral damage to those who simply lack certain forms of documentary proof. It was also blindingly obvious that this unintended consequence would result from the way they chose to approach it.

I am not convinced it is an unintended consequence

surrey_commuter

TailWindHome wrote:

Sky News Breaking‏Verified account @SkyNewsBreak · 3h3 hours ago

A poll by @SkyData suggests 25% of people think the impact on the Windrush generation is a price worth paying to discourage illegal immigrants while 54% do not think it is a price worth paying

From memory 25% of people were not entitled to vote in referendum, 25% did not vote, 25% voted remain and 25% voted Leave. In that context that poll is no surprise.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A bit of a stretch to say that because the government won a general election, a majority of the public wholeheartedly supports every detail of every policy. And it's not as though governments aren't happy to drop or rethink manifesto pledges when it suits them. There was support for reducing overall immigration but how that was achieved is entirely the responsibility of the government. It would be perfectly possible to address genuine illegal immigration without the collateral damage to those who simply lack certain forms of documentary proof. It was also blindingly obvious that this unintended consequence would result from the way they chose to approach it.

I am not convinced it is an unintended consequence

I'm trying hard to not be cynical but they're not making it easy. Either Rudd and May had little idea how their department worked, or they just thought "f*** it, it can't be that many people." There are no good explanations.

orraloon

Or possibly Maybot and Rudd are just career politicians of limited intelligence and zero practical nous and neither had a xxxxing clue about anything real, outside of the media + Westminster bubble? Harsh? Cynical? Maybe. But if I were a betting person...

rjsterry

orraloon wrote:

Or possibly Maybot and Rudd are just career politicians of limited intelligence and zero practical nous and neither had a xxxxing clue about anything real, outside of the media + Westminster bubble? Harsh? Cynical? Maybe. But if I were a betting person...

The LK Bennett comment from Rudd would seem to fit with that theory.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lk-bennett

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

I'm trying hard to not be cynical but they're not making it easy. Either Rudd and May had little idea how their department worked, or they just thought "f*** it, it can't be that many people." There are no good explanations.

May lacks compassion. Her take is that foreign nationals have a choice: live in their country of origin or pass the threshold. She does not have the ability to care about cases such as Windrush. She sees it as a Jamaican who should have done some paperwork and has no sympathy. She will be aware that the paperwork is not trivial.

This is her attitude to all immigration. Hence the shambles around foreign spouses. I'm still hoping the media will pick that up soon e.g. when she won at the court of appeal the case around a minimal income for spouses, all that it meant was that 4000 spouses were deported. Millions spent to break up some families. In May's simple mind they should just live in the other country - why you can't do that is a question on the application form.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm trying hard to not be cynical but they're not making it easy. Either Rudd and May had little idea how their department worked, or they just thought "f*** it, it can't be that many people." There are no good explanations.

May lacks compassion. Her take is that foreign nationals have a choice: live in their country of origin or pass the threshold. She does not have the ability to care about cases such as Windrush. She sees it as a Jamaican who should have done some paperwork and has no sympathy. She will be aware that the paperwork is not trivial.

This is her attitude to all immigration. Hence the shambles around foreign spouses. I'm still hoping the media will pick that up soon e.g. when she won at the court of appeal the case around a minimal income for spouses, all that it meant was that 4000 spouses were deported. Millions spent to break up some families. In May's simple mind they should just live in the other country - why you can't do that is a question on the application form.

The more I look at it, the more I'm leaning towards my latter explanation. Maybe drop Amelia Gentleman an email.

rick_chasey

Difficult to disagree with BB there.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Difficult to disagree with BB there.

I would add that I am sure she sees it as not being able to make an omelette without breaking some eggs and prides herself on making tough decisions.

On a wider basis what do we think about people who are anti-immigration but then get squeamish over the details whether it be blameless upright members of society or skill shortages in crucial areas?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Difficult to disagree with BB there.

I would add that I am sure she sees it as not being able to make an omelette without breaking some eggs and prides herself on making tough decisions.

On a wider basis what do we think about people who are anti-immigration but then get squeamish over the details whether it be blameless upright members of society or skill shortages in crucial areas?

Hypocritical.

And have a higher likelihood of being racist, unconsciously or otherwise.

rjsterry

Today was (re)covering the HO putting patient health at risk by not issuing visas for about 400 Indian doctors offered jobs by the NHS. Apparently the cap for that tier of visas had been used up by additional nurses and doctors employed to fill the greater than expected number of vacancies.

orraloon

rjsterry wrote:

the greater than expected number of vacancies.

...caused in part by EU staff leaving, because... you know...

Actual example: my eye consultant is/was Greek but has chosen to leave the UK, because... you know...

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Difficult to disagree with BB there.

I would add that I am sure she sees it as not being able to make an omelette without breaking some eggs and prides herself on making tough decisions.

On a wider basis what do we think about people who are anti-immigration but then get squeamish over the details whether it be blameless upright members of society or skill shortages in crucial areas?

I would go for straight up stupid.

This does seem to have been the result of setting an arbitrary and most likely unreachable immigration target, which then gets taken out on the vulnerable, or low hanging fruit.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I would add that I am sure she sees it as not being able to make an omelette without breaking some eggs and prides herself on making tough decisions.

A decision should only qualify as tough when you have to suffer some pain yourself. Choosing to drop bombs somewhere / deporting people that shouldn't be etc. are not tough decisions, but acts of cowardice.

pblakeney

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I would add that I am sure she sees it as not being able to make an omelette without breaking some eggs and prides herself on making tough decisions.

A decision should only qualify as tough when you have to suffer some pain yourself. Choosing to drop bombs somewhere / deporting people that shouldn't be etc. are not tough decisions, but acts of cowardice.

As shown below.

PBlakeney wrote:

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