Confused about who IS entitled to be in the UK?

me283 · 11-03-2005, 20:49

Been thinking about this for a while, and listening to the news today has brought back somewhat conflicting issues to my head. Here goes:

1) A few years back, I had an American girlfriend. She came to visit (legally) on a 3 month visa; she was nearly sent back, as although I was collecting her at the airport, she had money, I could support her etc etc, the immigration chap thought she might be trying to stay here for longer.

2) The Belmarsh detainees are to be released forthwith (according to the news earlier, but that situation may have changed). According to reports, these are known as "dangerous people", insomuch as at least one is a high ranking member of Al Qaeda. Why are they not just refused entry (as they would be to many other countries), as one assumes it is not compulsory to allow just anyone to enter the country?

3) Abu Hamza and others are known as illegal immigrants, they preach hatred of this country yet they are allowed to stay, seemingly on an open-ended basis, supported by the benefit system. He even had police presence to ensure his preaching sessions were not interrupted.

4) Last year, Jean-Marie Le Pen (French, leader of their equivalent to the National Front) was threatened with deportation if he spoke out of line. There were even calls to ban him entering the UK, even though as a European he is supposedly entitled to be free to roam through Europe. He wasn't looking to claim benefits either.

So my question is this: who has a RIGHT To enter the country, and who decides on which people DON'T have a right?

Incidentally, I don't support Le Pen, nor do I endorse his politics; he is merely an example here.

**Damien** · 11-03-2005, 20:55

1. People who will make a genuine contribuation to the UK (I.E. Skilled workers, docters etc)

2. People fleeing danger

3. Other reasons such as family living in country

The people who decide are the goverment and its agencys. If they are not allowed to stay they are deported or they slip though the net and hence they are ilegal and those do not claim benfit or health care as they will be found out if they do.

We have had more than enough of these topics already.

punky · 11-03-2005, 20:56

The problem is, the government cannot deport people to a country where they will face torture, or an abuse of their human rights..... Which is most of the Middle East... Syria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc.

Most of those detainees are wanted for crimes in those countries and could have been extradited if we didn't have that rule, or recieved some assurance from these countries that their human rights would be observed (which is ironic as if they were caught in those coutries in the first place, they wouldn't be so lucky)..

me283 · 11-03-2005, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

We have had more than enough of these topics already.

Thank you for that Damien. It clears it up a bit, but not entirely.

Your last point isn't clear though: what gives you the right to decide which topics are broached? And what do you mean by "these topics"? If you don't like a thread, nobody is forcing you to read it.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

The problem is, the government cannot deport people to a country where they will face torture, or an abuse of their human rights..... Which is most of the Middle East... Syria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc.

Most of those detainees are wanted for crimes in those countries and could have been extradited if we didn't have that rule, or recieved some assurance from these countries that their human rights would be observed (which is ironic as if they were caught in those coutries in the first place, they wouldn't be so lucky)..

Ah yes, my old friend the "human rights" issue. Strange that.

punky · 11-03-2005, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

Ah yes, my old friend the "human rights" issue. Strange that.

Do you know what I think is the must digustingly absurd part of this?

We can't deport people to Syria as they will face torture, but the UN designated Syria to be fit to decide how other countries should be run themselves (it was on the security council until end of 2003.) What a farce.

greencreeper · 11-03-2005, 21:18

Just a friendly request to keep the thread civil and reasoned. No personal attacks or overt racism, please

me283 · 11-03-2005, 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by greencreeper

Just a friendly request to keep the thread civil and reasoned. No personal attacks or overt racism, please

I see no racism here? In fact, I am a strong campaigner AGAINST racism. I am also civil, I think? I'm not sure of your angle here.

Just to explain this a tad further... the examples I quoted in my opening post showed that there are people allowed into the UK who hate the place, yet there are others who want to enter the UK as a part of Europe, and it's made difficult for them. That seems imbalanced to me. It can't be a political thing, as those in both examples hold extreme views?

And moving on, a different thread pointed out that a lot of the "travelling community" are from Ireland. In their case, the council provide land for them to live on! It just seems odd to me, that's all. My hope was to see if others had similar views, or could maybe explain. Instead, I feel like I'm being censored.

punky · 11-03-2005, 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

I see no racism here? In fact, I am a strong campaigner AGAINST racism. I am also civil, I think? I'm not sure of your angle here.

He didn't mean you personally...

We know how these threads end up, regardless who is posting, so we are trialling early warnings to see if that can help keep the threads more civil.

me283 · 11-03-2005, 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

He didn't mean you personally...

We know how these threads end up, regardless who is posting, so we are trialling early warnings to see if that can help keep the threads more civil.

That's fair enough Punky, but you of all people should agree I'm no racist. It really riles me when that term is thrown into the ring as soon as a mildly sensitive subject is broached.

greencreeper · 11-03-2005, 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

He didn't mean you personally...

We know how these threads end up, regardless who is posting, so we are trialling early warnings to see if that can help keep the threads more civil.

Didn't work though, did it

It was a friendly general message - there are trolls out there, lurking, waiting for threads such as this. It's good to see reasoned discussion and debate

punky · 11-03-2005, 21:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by greencreeper

Didn't work though, did it

It was a friendly general message - there are trolls out there, lurking, waiting for threads such as this. It's good to see reasoned discussion and debate

Might need a bit of tweaking

For the record, no member of the RND mod team, or the former mod team is accusing anyone of racism in this thread.

Now, as we were saying...

me283 · 11-03-2005, 21:52

Fiar enough, no offence taken.

aliferste · 11-03-2005, 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

"travelling community" ........l provide land for them to live on! .

Would that be travelling land by any chance?

Its just that the problem with the travelling community is that they do just that...........a life on the road with extended periods of time spent in the one place!!

me283 · 12-03-2005, 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliferste

Would that be travelling land by any chance?

Its just that the problem with the travelling community is that they do just that...........a life on the road with extended periods of time spent in the one place!!

Ah, Aliferste, it may have been unintentional, but you misquote me. What I said was: "In their case, the council provide land for them to live on".

In honesty, I would love a life where I could do that; settle, enjoy the surroundings, then up sticks and move on after a few weeks or months. But that's not really the true picture. If I may correct you, the problem is not their living on the road and staying in different places for different times; it's how they live when they have settled temporarily, and how they affect those around them.

Anyway, that detracts from the original issue. As a comparison, I have relatives who have emigrated to three different countries on three different continents. In eachcase they had to prove that they were a) skilled and b) self-supportive before even being considered for acceptance to live in those countries. There was never any question of just turning up and claiming benefits, or expecting to be housed.

My own view is that the country's present handling of immigration is ridiculously lax; we as a country cannot cope with many more people, and yet we seem to absorb all the "waifs and strays" that knock on our door. And I am referring to black and white, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jewish, Agnostic, Hindu, and any other religion I may have missed. It is non-discriminatory, but I feel it should be MORE selective.

Escapee · 12-03-2005, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

The problem is, the government cannot deport people to a country where they will face torture, or an abuse of their human rights..... Which is most of the Middle East... Syria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc.

Most of those detainees are wanted for crimes in those countries and could have been extradited if we didn't have that rule, or recieved some assurance from these countries that their human rights would be observed (which is ironic as if they were caught in those coutries in the first place, they wouldn't be so lucky)..

I think the human rights issue is a big problem, it is used to protect many of these people who, as you say commit crimes in other countries. These people then use the excuse of persecution, to stay out of jail in their own country and settle here to be provided with a house and benefits.

The whole situation is not black or white, the people who campaign for assylum seekers to stay are doing a mixture of good and bad. If the person is to be persecuted in their country of origin for no reason thats not right, if however they have commited a crime they should be returned to have their hands chopped off etc. What use is it to this country allowing a criminal to stay here instead of sending him back home to face the music, we are ending up as a safe haven for foreign criminals who claim persecution.