Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:22 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

British citizens who happen to fall in love with someone from outside the EU are having their relationships split asunder by draconian new rules.

Seconded. I met a incredibly pretty Canadian girl who was over in the UK on a 2 year working visa. Things were going well...and 6 months later we made the decision she was going to try and stay on in the UK, to see if this could be something long-term.

After multiple phone calls to the UKBA (ironically, often speaking with someone who was not British), hours spent trawling through the UKBA website, numerous e mails and phone calls to immigration solicitors and much heartache, we discovered the only way for her to have a good chance of getting in to the UK is if we could show we had been living together in a subsisting relationship for 2 years. Clearly, having only known each-other 6 months this was never going to happen.

Of course, she could have overstayed, we could have got married, had a kid and then put in an application for her to stay using the right to a private and family life. But I didn't fancy the idea of harboring an illegal immigrant.

We do need a new debate on immigration, but unfortunately we won't get a sensible one.

No, you never get a sensible one. Because most people are too scared to say what they really think for fear of being branded racist.

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:31 pm  

The Racist Van?

'In the UK illegally? go home or face arrest'

How is that racist? It's silly and pointless but racist? how?

This is part of the immigration discussion that really gets on my nerves, the slight mention of the word immigration and the knives are sharping and the eyes are focusing waiting for your next sentence, if it's even a whiff against...RACIST.

The silly tit for tat childish slanging match of the commons is suddenly out in the open, there never seems to be a common point in which to debate your for/against discussion, everything is too polarised.
You're either with it and a lefty liberal or against it and branded a dangerous racist, pathetic.

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:14 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

The Racist Van?

'In the UK illegally? go home or face arrest'

How is that racist? It's silly and pointless but racist? how?

This is part of the immigration discussion that really gets on my nerves, the slight mention of the word immigration and the knives are sharping and the eyes are focusing waiting for your next sentence, if it's even a whiff against...RACIST.

The silly tit for tat childish slanging match of the commons is suddenly out in the open, there never seems to be a common point in which to debate your for/against discussion, everything is too polarised.
You're either with it and a lefty liberal or against it and branded a dangerous racist, pathetic.

I don't think its necessarily racist although if I were non-white and living in one of the targeted borough then I may have a different opinion.

What I do think it is is stupid, and I expect more from public servants, naive, but true.

Its stupid because it isn't going to work, no person who is staying in the country illegally is going to tweet "I'm here, can you send me home please, where shall I meet you ?"

Its clearly a publicity stunt devised by the Conservative party to try and reclaim some of their right wing who have been expressing interest in UKIP's ideas (I refuse to call them policies), a showpiece to say "Hey look, we can talk tough as well", but they are doing it with public money rather than their own advertising budget, its the Home office who are doing this, with public money.

If its NOT a Conservative Party recruitment campaign funded by public money and it REALLY is a genuine Home Office well-thought-through campaign then its gross stupidity beyond words and heads and gold plated pensions should roll.

Such stupidity deserves mockery and its getting it in shitloads at the moment - no doubt there will be some massaged statistics coming along next week to show that its really working, without any real data to back it up - you know, names and addresses, that sort of thing.

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:50 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

Seconded. I met a incredibly pretty Canadian girl who was over in the UK on a 2 year working visa. Things were going well...and 6 months later we made the decision she was going to try and stay on in the UK, to see if this could be something long-term.

After multiple phone calls to the UKBA (ironically, often speaking with someone who was not British), hours spent trawling through the UKBA website, numerous e mails and phone calls to immigration solicitors and much heartache, we discovered the only way for her to have a good chance of getting in to the UK is if we could show we had been living together in a subsisting relationship for 2 years. Clearly, having only known each-other 6 months this was never going to happen.

Of course, she could have overstayed, we could have got married, had a kid and then put in an application for her to stay using the right to a private and family life. But I didn't fancy the idea of harboring an illegal immigrant.

I've been through a similar situation. I'm not seeing what you think the Govt should do. You knew when you started seeing her that she would have to leave. She would have been even more aware of it. Do you really think that short term flings that *might* develop into more should be recognised by the Govt as worthy of giving extensions to visas? I don't.

If the both of you aren't prepared to go through the "long distance thing". If you weren't willing to make the effort to go to Canada for 3 months to stay with her to further your relationship then why should she be given an extension? If they gave extensions to visas for people in short term relationships then pretty much everyone over here on a working visa is going to be hooking up with people to stay longer.

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:00 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I've been through a similar situation. I'm not seeing what you think the Govt should do. You knew when you started seeing her that she would have to leave. She would have been even more aware of it. Do you really think that short term flings that *might* develop into more should be recognised by the Govt as worthy of giving extensions to visas? I don't.

If the both of you aren't prepared to go through the "long distance thing". If you weren't willing to make the effort to go to Canada for 3 months to stay with her to further your relationship then why should she be given an extension? If they gave extensions to visas for people in short term relationships then pretty much everyone over here on a working visa is going to be hooking up with people to stay longer.

As I say, there were various ways round it if I was prepared to blatantly flout the rules and play fast and loose with the law, as I suspect many do each year.

The UKBA is a completely useless organisation and she could have easily overstayed. It would have been 18 months before anyone had noticed, at which point we could have done a human rights special and she would almost certainly have been allowed leave to remain. If they tried to boot her we would have no doubt had numerous rights of appeal, which could have been dragged out over several years, at great expense to the taxpayer.

What could the Govt do? Off the top of my head, how about a system where you can 'sponsor' someone?

Canada is Commonwealth, we both have the same Head of State. I would have happily provided a financial bond, and offered assurances that she was living with me, in return for extending her visa. Further, she had funds, and would have happily put several thousand pounds c/o HMG.

At the end of a couple of years if we could prove a stable and subsisting relationship then they could return our bonds and grant a 5 year visa, followed by indefinite leave to remain if still together at the end of it.

You may think this is batpoop mad, or unworkable, but a very similar system is already in place. If you are in the armed forces and marry someone from outisde the EU they get a 5 year initial UK visa after which they can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If at any point during the 5 years the marriage breaks down they are supposed to leave, but in reality many have kids and a life in the UK by this point so they claim leave to remain using Article 8 right to private and family life.

Clearly if Miss Canada had been from some second-world EU country with no command of the English language and no intention of doing anything but rinsing our benefits system, there wouldn't have been a problem.

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:16 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

As I say, there were various ways round it if I was prepared to blatantly flout the rules and play fast and loose with the law, as I suspect many do each year.

It wouldn't have been you playing fast and loose with the law, it would have been her.

The UKBA is a completely useless organisation and she could have easily overstayed. It would have been 18 months before anyone had noticed, at which point we could have done a human rights special and she would almost certainly have been allowed leave to remain. If they tried to boot her we would have no doubt had numerous rights of appeal, which could have been dragged out over several years, at great expense to the taxpayer.

She could have overstayed. But it would have been putting any future visit to the UK in jeopardy because of that overstay. Her work would have been illegal, as her allowance to work would have expired. If you two had split up 2 months after her overstay then she'd have struggled to ever get back into the country ever again.

What could the Govt do? Off the top of my head, how about a system where you can 'sponsor' someone?

Canada is Commonwealth, we both have the same Head of State. I would have happily provided a financial bond, and offered assurances that she was living with me, in return for extending her visa. Further, she had funds, and would have happily put several thousand pounds c/o HMG.

At the end of a couple of years if we could prove a stable and subsisting relationship then they could return our bonds and grant a 5 year visa, followed by indefinite leave to remain if still together at the end of it.

You may think this is batpoop mad, or unworkable, but a very similar system is already in place. If you are in the armed forces and marry someone from outisde the EU they get a 5 year initial UK visa after which they can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If at any point during the 5 years the marriage breaks down they have 93 days to leave, but in reality many have kids and a life in the UK so they claim leave to remain using Article 8 right to private and family life.

Clearly, if she had been from some second-world EU country with no command of the English language and no intention of doing anything but rinsing our benefits system, there wouldn't have been a problem.

You want extensions for a *girlfriend* that the armed forces get for being married.

We've already seen that the moronic ad campaign of driving around with a "Illegal immigrant? Go home" has been branded racist. I don't see any racist undertones in that ad, just that it's stupid and a waste of time. If the Govt did what you suggest I think there are going to be genuine calls that the UK system was blatantly racist.

If the "girlfriend" extension to visas was introduced then the number of applications is going to skyrocket. Hardly anyone is going to marry someone to help them stay. Virtually every guy would accept a "very pretty Canadian" as their girlfriend if she needed to stay.

From what you've written it seems that you and the Canadian split up rather than go through the long and hard process of maintaining a relationship. You and her decided that you didn't feel the relationship was worth the effort but you think the Govt should have.

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:58 am  

Disco Inferno. http://www.edl.me/

Disco Inferno. http://www.edl.me/

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:32 am  

Immigration in this country is simple and straightforward, open and fair as currently applied.

If you are white and can speak and write English then come on in, especially if you have loads of dosh.

If you are white but come from Europe, well we have to let you in but don't expect us to like you in fact we will use the media into making you pariahs

If your skin pigmentation is anything other than "white" then the darker the shade the tougher the entry but can be compensated and scaled by how much dosh you can bring in.

If you have skills knowledge, experience that will benefit both the country and you, forget it as they are irrelevant (see under UKIP, NF, BNP, Tories etc.)

That about sums it up doesn't it.

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:39 am  

Leaguefan wrote:

Immigration in this country is simple and straightforward, open and fair as currently applied.

If you are white and can speak and write English then come on in, especially if you have loads of dosh.

If you are white but come from Europe, well we have to let you in but don't expect us to like you in fact we will use the media into making you pariahs

If your skin pigmentation is anything other than "white" then the darker the shade the tougher the entry but can be compensated and scaled by how much dosh you can bring in.

If you have skills knowledge, experience that will benefit both the country and you, forget it as they are irrelevant (see under UKIP, NF, BNP, Tories etc.)

That about sums it up doesn't it.

All a bit complicated isn't it.

It was much simpler when Labour were in office, "You wana come in?", then in you come.

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:50 am  

Leaguefan wrote:

Immigration in this country is simple and straightforward, open and fair as currently applied.

If you are white and can speak and write English then come on in, especially if you have loads of dosh.

If you are white but come from Europe, well we have to let you in but don't expect us to like you in fact we will use the media into making you pariahs

If your skin pigmentation is anything other than "white" then the darker the shade the tougher the entry but can be compensated and scaled by how much dosh you can bring in.

If you have skills knowledge, experience that will benefit both the country and you, forget it as they are irrelevant (see under UKIP, NF, BNP, Tories etc.)

That about sums it up doesn't it.

No, not really.

It's a rich/poor issue, not a colour issue.

Now, there are colour issues because many poor countries are not white. But take China and Japan for instance. A Japanese person is going to get into the UK far easier than someone from China would, but most Brits would struggle to know the difference between the two.