Is May's 'Hostile Environment Reminiscent Of Nazi Germany

[FXR_1340]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 35696.html

I am assuming this is your evidence justifying your claim that the Windrush debacle was premeditated?

Stretching it a bit, isnt it?

[vinny]

I think that

destroying landing cards
abolishing exit controls
destroying parent's ILR BRP
having too complex immigration rules

are probably examples of incompetence.

However, their consequences in an inflexible hostile environment are deliberate. Removing appeal rights is malicious, if they also consider people guilty until proven innocent.

[Obie]

Well, by definition incompetence in the inability of someone to do something or a task successfully.

The landing card burning or destruction is difficult to describe as that. It was a government policy which was properly executed. This is not a decision which civil servant undertook without the authority of the executive or politician. I will not call it incompetence, as it was properly burnt. Had they burnt some and left others, then it may have been properly characterized as incompetent.

There is no question of whether the burning was properly executed, the question is why it was burnt. To take such policy decision, there has to be underlying reasons. I have so far being unable to see any rational reason for the burning.

In the absence of a intelligible explanation, i believe one is entitled to make reasonable inferences, one of which could be dubious , birder line malicious intent, giving the ensuing event that follows the destruction.

They could have got a system in place of determining how many of the windrush people have applied for British passport, and those that have record of having applied for a passport could have their cards burnt.

One think i admire this forum for, and why i am so proud to be one of its moderators, is the fact that everyone is entitled to express his or her opinion without fear or favour, even if we be fundamentally differ on our views on matter.

[vinny]

I was using a broader definition.

or lack of metal capacity to understand the consequences of his actions.

[secret.simon]

Somebody at the BBC or the FT reads this website. Alan Johnson, the former Labour Home Secretary, was just asked about the hostile environment starting under Labour, pretty much the same point I made two days ago.

Today's episode of The Week in Westminster, presented by George Parker of the Financial Times, should be available as a podcast soon.

Last week's edition of The Westminster Hour is also worth listening to. It looks at Home Office policy in the round.

The Economist makes a case for reviving the Labour Identity Card for everybody (i.e. not just migrants, but everybody will be asked to carry documentation, just like the rest of Europe).

[FXR_1340]

This subject becomes more confusing with each post.

In order to help understanding, what are the reasond behind the so called "hostile environment"?

In the event of it beginning, or at least possibly having its roots, back in mid 2000s what were the drivers?

[secret.simon]

In order to help understanding, what are the reasond behind the so called "hostile environment"?

This is my reading of the runes, so not everybody will agree with it.

I believe that atleast part of the trigger was, as I quoted in an earlier post, the ease with which illegal people present in the UK could survive. In continental Europe, life is very hard, as documentation is required for routine actions. In the UK, you could get by without being questioned about your residence status.

That was alleged to be at least part of the cause for the formation of the Jungle at Calais. France is not a poor country, nor is it negatively inclined against immigration any more than the UK. So, why the desire to get to the UK? While part of the motivation was also said to be joining family here and that the migrants were more likely to speak basic English rather than French (I blame the Empire), the fact that one could live a fairly normal life in the UK without documentation was also a factor.

As mentioned, the hostile environment is ironically a European import and not an original idea. We are essentially aping France and Belgium in requiring papers to be proven at various intervals, when accessing services, whether private (housing, bank accounts, etc) or public (healthcare).

If you trawl though these forums, you will see that many people survived for years, occasionally even a decade or more, before legalising their stay. In some cases, they did not mind remaining illegal, as there used to be a 14 year (legal+illegal) path to ILR, that was shut in 2012, when it was replaced by a 20 (legal+illegal) +10(legal) year path to ILR.

Also, if you read the Economist article that I linked to above, it makes the argument that in this age of mass movement, merely controlling borders is not enough to control migration. One must also be aware of people living within the country on an ongoing basis. And one way to do that is require documentation of various rights to be verified on a regular basis.

[Obie]

I was using a broader definition.

or lack of metal capacity to understand the consequences of his actions.

Well we will have to see. At least they owe it to the public to provide the legal advise they received in regards to the conclusion that holding the card breaches the DPA.

I can see we are delving into the diminished responsibility area, but can one really make this assessment when the government is hiding everything for us? they said it had to be done as a legal consequence of the DPA. That make no sense, there are no provision of the DPA obliges the Home Office to burn those card.

[Obie]

This subject becomes more confusing with each post.

In order to help understanding, what are the reasond behind the so called "hostile environment"?

In the event of it beginning, or at least possibly having its roots, back in mid 2000s what were the drivers?

Well it is difficult to go into the mind of those ministers that came to the decision to burn those cards, but one can lay out some theory and let you guys make up your mind.

On the 20-04-1968, there was a very prominent and respected Tory MP ( within the Tory party circle and their constituents at least) who gave a speech in Birmingham. This April marks half a century since he gave the speech.

He complained about the windrush people and the fact that the government must not allow them to come in, his speech was titled the river of blood. His views were well supported in the UK at a time when there was not much migration to the UK.

The Tories have always thrived on vilification of migrant. It is a policy that unites and binds them as a party, and a policy that enables them to rally their base in England. This nativist, cultural and anti-globalisation approach is what mobilises the conservatives. Lets face it, without migrant the Tories will have difficulties to make in roads especially in middle England. They have nothing to offer the poor and middle class. All they can give is tax cuts to the rich.

In 2005 Election i remember coming from school with my friends, and seeing this poster of Michael Howard, with the caption," Immigration is too high, are you thinking what we are thinking",It is 13 years ago but i still remember it, that was from a man whose parents came to this country running away from the Nazi, seeking to vilify migrant just for political gains to unite his party and their base. From that day, i made a decision that i shall never vote for these people. The billboards was put right at the entrance to my school, in inner London school with 38% children from ethnic background. Why did the Tories felt the need to put it infront of our school?

We know the story of Peter Griffiths, how he scapegoated Smethwick black voters. We know some of the despicable things he said when voters were surging to vote for his opponent, they are so abhorrent that i will not repeat them on this forum. That 1964 election happened in the Period of Windrush, when UK was begging these people to come in, and getting ship to bring them, when net migration was in the Negative.

To call windrush scandal 2018 as a mistake, demonstrate either a very high degree of ignorance, border line naivety of how the Tories operates and how they have operated for over a century, and how they will continue to operate in the future.
It is not an accident by any stretch of the imagination, it is their modus operandi. Hostility to migrant is in the Tories DNA and nothing will ever change that . They never make a mistake when it come to migrant. It is their football, they have always had to play it to maximum effect.

They have taken onboard what Mr Powell said in 1968, they have to make right, what they perceive in their minds as historical injustice caused as a result of ignoring one of their most respected MP's views on these people. As they approach the 50th anniversary of his speech they needed to do something spectacular. They had to make right the wrong that Mr Powell told them was being perpetrated in letting these people in, they had to burn these landing card that was acting as an obstacle to their endeavour, they had to then ask these people to prove the unprovable, they had to detain them and refuse them cancer treatment, they had to stop those who had left from returning, they had to refuse the advise from those who complained about the wrongness of their practice, they had to make the UK an hostile environment. They have to make windrush people go, they have to take on board the advise given in 1968, they realised it may have been a mistake to ignore it. The windrush migrant had to go, it was a mistake to let them In in the first place. As wanderer correctly stated, the UK was too full to accommodate them. It was a well calculated and executed policy

The same Tories at the 1964 election, who supported Peter Griffiths with all the means at their disposal, same Tories who supported Enoch Powell, the same Tories who said are you thinking what we are thinking, and we clearly know what they were thinking then and now, it is the same Tories we have today in power, the only difference is that in the 60's they do these things overtly, and in 2018 they are doing it covertly. They use dog-whistles ,nuances, words like hostile environment, use those annoying buses around London to intimidate.

I do not believe , when it comes to immigration that anything the conservatives do can ever be described as a mistake or accident.

They are showing regret because they were caught, and their reputation took a hit from people around the world. There is not an ounce of contrition on their part as far as i can see.

It is a wrongful approach to view these events in isolation as a one of event. One has to assess historical events, data, study the working of the Tories, their past practices, things that have said or done, acts they have supported implicitly or explicitly, then come to a conclusion as to the Windrush people, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

David Lammy speech hit the nail on the coffin, he may seem angry, but the Tories understand fully well what he was saying to them.

[secret.simon]

Snap pub quiz question: Who called the Conservatives the "Nasty Party" in 2002? Moderators and respected Gurus, please do not respond.

[FXR_1340]

This subject becomes more confusing with each post.

In order to help understanding, what are the reasond behind the so called "hostile environment"?

In the event of it beginning, or at least possibly having its roots, back in mid 2000s what were the drivers?

Well it is difficult to go into the mind of those ministers that came to the decision to burn those cards, but one can lay out some theory and let you guys make up your mind.

On the 20-04-1968, there was a very prominent and respected Tory MP ( within the Tory party circle and their constituents at least) who gave a speech in Birmingham. This April marks half a century since he gave the speech.

He complained about the windrush people and the fact that the government must not allow them to come in, his speech was titled the river of blood. His views were well supported in the UK at a time when there was not much migration to the UK.

The Tories have always thrived on vilification of migrant. It is a policy that unites and binds them as a party, and a policy that enables them to rally their base in England. This nativist, cultural and anti-globalisation approach is what mobilises the conservatives. Lets face it, without migrant the Tories will have difficulties to make in roads especially in middle England. They have nothing to offer the poor and middle class. All they can give is tax cuts to the rich.

In 2005 Election i remember coming from school with my friends, and seeing this poster of Michael Howard, with the caption," Immigration is too high, are you thinking what we are thinking",It is 13 years ago but i still remember it, that was from a man whose parents came to this country running away from the Nazi, seeking to vilify migrant just for political gains to unite his party and their base. From that day, i made a decision that i shall never vote for these people. The billboards was put right at the entrance to my school, in inner London school with 38% children from ethnic background. Why did the Tories felt the need to put it infront of our school?

We know the story of Peter Griffiths, how he scapegoated Smethwick black voters. We know some of the despicable things he said when voters were surging to vote for his opponent, they are so abhorrent that i will not repeat them on this forum. That 1964 election happened in the Period of Windrush, when UK was begging these people to come in, and getting ship to bring them, when net migration was in the Negative.

To call windrush scandal 2018 as a mistake, demonstrate either a very high degree of ignorance, border line naivety of how the Tories operates and how they have operated for over a century, and how they will continue to operate in the future.
It is not an accident by any stretch of the imagination, it is their modus operandi. Hostility to migrant is in the Tories DNA and nothing will ever change that . They never make a mistake when it come to migrant. It is their football, they have always had to play it to maximum effect.

They have taken onboard what Mr Powell said in 1968, they have to make right, what they perceive in their minds as historical injustice caused as a result of ignoring one of their most respected MP's views on these people. As they approach the 50th anniversary of his speech they needed to do something spectacular. They had to make right the wrong that Mr Powell told them was being perpetrated in letting these people in, they had to burn these landing card that was acting as an obstacle to their endeavour, they had to then ask these people to prove the unprovable, they had to detain them and refuse them cancer treatment, they had to stop those who had left from returning, they had to refuse the advise from those who complained about the wrongness of their practice, they had to make the UK an hostile environment. They have to make windrush people go, they have to take on board the advise given in 1968, they realised it may have been a mistake to ignore it. The windrush migrant had to go, it was a mistake to let them In in the first place. As wanderer correctly stated, the UK was too full to accommodate them. It was a well calculated and executed policy

The same Tories at the 1964 election, who supported Peter Griffiths with all the means at their disposal, same Tories who supported Enoch Powell, the same Tories who said are you thinking what we are thinking, and we clearly know what they were thinking then and now, it is the same Tories we have today in power, the only difference is that in the 60's they do these things overtly, and in 2018 they are doing it covertly. They use dog-whistles ,nuances, words like hostile environment, use those annoying buses around London to intimidate.

I do not believe , when it comes to immigration that anything the conservatives do can ever be described as a mistake or accident.

They are showing regret because they were caught, and their reputation took a hit from people around the world. There is not an ounce of contrition on their part as far as i can see.

It is a wrongful approach to view these events in isolation as a one of event. One has to assess historical events, data, study the working of the Tories, their past practices, things that have said or done, acts they have supported implicitly or explicitly, then come to a conclusion as to the Windrush people, in the event of evidence to the contrary.

David Lammy speech hit the nail on the coffin, he may seem angry, but the Tories understand fully well what he was saying to them.

As mentioned previously, I am no apologist fir the Tories. I was 20 years old when Thatcher came to power and I lived thru the decimation she, Tebbit, Joseph et al brought to this country. As a Scot we suffered very badly in our own country.

So to my point, you frequently mention the Tories and what they did. I understand your reluctance to vote Tory. However subsequent govts at WM have done little and not nearly enough to chance the immigration situation if this country. ALL govts in my life time (59 years) have chosen to conduct their politics using immigration as a political points opportunity.

IMO the problems surrounding Windrush, immigration etc are due to the mindset of the British Establishment. Its not a Tory thing its an acceptable way of thinking. Trust me. It will never change!

That brings me to the point of why does this country attract immigrants like a magnet? Lets face it, the only thing it has going for it is the NHS, Social Security system and the likes. That is an attraction for immigrants from many countries around the world.

Dont think for one second that the outlook towards immigration to UK is going to change. The doctines which have been adopted for decades will not change. The may fiddle about at the edges but they will not change sufficiently to make much difference. Its an Establishment thing. Establishment will never change.

......just my take on things

[vinny]

I was using a broader definition.

or lack of metal capacity to understand the consequences of his actions.

Well we will have to see. At least they owe it to the public to provide the legal advise they received in regards to the conclusion that holding the card breaches the DPA.

I can see we are delving into the diminished responsibility area, but can one really make this assessment when the government is hiding everything for us? they said it had to be done as a legal consequence of the DPA. That make no sense, there are no provision of the DPA obliges the Home Office to burn those card.

Instead of destroying these historical documents/evidence/landing cards, they should have transferred them to the National Archives. Credit goes to some smart civil servants who may have done just that with some of the documents.

However, maintaining a lack of transparency is unhelpful to finding out the truth.

[rooibos]

Simon, with due respect, your contributions are getting more and more confused by the day.

First, you have delusions of grandeur and say that basically your posts of two years ago are influencing MPs.

Then you blame Europe for the hostile environment because they've had national ID papers for years.

God help us if this the level of moderators we have.

[Casa]

Simon, with due respect, your contributions are getting more and more confused by the day.

First, you have delusions of grandeur and say that basically your posts of two years ago are influencing MPs.

Then you blame Europe for the hostile environment because they've had national ID papers for years.

God help us if this the level of moderators we have.

With respect, this thread has been running without personal 'criticism' of the contributors. Let's keep it that way.

[Obie]

Yes I agree. We can disagree with someone else's view, but we must respect their entitlement to make them.

We can challenge a particular view point in a courteous manner without translating that into personal attack.

If those principles are not adhered to, then it becomes an exercise of mud-slinging, the forum will enter into a state of disrepute, we will not be able to tolerate that.

This is a matter that is very emotional, but we however have to maintain a degree of self-restrain and this applies to all of us.

[secret.simon]

Simon, with due respect,

There is no need for such filthy language on these forums.

In Yes Minister, Humphrey is technically Hacker's junior but actually regards him as inferior and rather dull. As a result:
Humphrey: And, with respect, Minister-
Hacker: Don't-don't use that filthy language to me, Humphrey.
Humphrey: Filthy language, Minister?
Hacker: I know what "with respect" means in your jargon. It means you're just about to imply that anything I'm about to suggest is beneath contempt.

First, you have delusions of grandeur and say that basically your posts of two years ago are influencing MPs.

If you live in the UK and appreciate British culture, then you learn British humour, which includes self-deprecation and self-mockery. I would love to think that I am that influential.

Then you blame Europe for the hostile environment because they've had national ID papers for years.

I am not blaming anybody. I merely stated that the idea originated there. We are aping a longstanding continental European custom.

God help us if this the level of moderators we have.

If it helps you feel any better, I did not put myself forward for the moderator role, though I did accept when I was offered.

In any case, I believe that I am carrying out the role in the job description, as it were; moderating. It is very easy to forget that there is always another side to an argument, especially when you are passionate about it. And I see my role as moderator is to ensure that, like a judge, the other side is heard, and if necessary, to even present the other side, if it has no representation.

After that interesting contre-temps, back to the topic.

The article linked to below is written by an alleged Labour supporter (though I question that. Which Labour supporter would read or write for the Times??).

...
the Windrush scandal, outside liberal, open cities and ethnic-minority communities, is only regarded as Tory mission creep, ie it is neither a revelation that the Conservatives sought to lower unprecedented immigration nor surprising that this might lead to unforeseen, racially charged outcomes.

It should be noted that the Daily Mail, which can usually locate the Middle England sweet spot, wants justice for blameless Caribbean nurses and bus drivers who built postwar Britain, yet still demands removal of “genuine” illegals. This, I would wager, is the unspoken view of mainstream voters. Yet when asked three times by Piers Morgan the simple question “what would Labour do about illegal immigrants?”, Diane Abbott, shadow home secretary, declined to answer. The “no borders” Labour activists will applaud but in Nuneaton this does not play well.
...

EDIT: Thank you, Casa and Obie, for your intervention. I was in the middle of my longwinded response when you posted.

[Richard W]

That 1964 election happened in the Period of Windrush, when UK was begging these people to come in, and getting ship to bring them, when net migration was in the Negative.

This was employers inviting them to come, not the UK as a whole. Obvious outsiders in large numbers have never been welcomed by the populace as a whole, not even French Huguenots. For the most part, employers were looking for workers to come and work where the conditions, including housing, were not appealing to the natives in other parts of the country. One of the few exceptions was the poaching of trained medical staff from abroad.

They have taken onboard what Mr Powell said in 1968, they have to make right, what they perceive in their minds as historical injustice caused as a result of ignoring one of their most respected MP's views on these people. As they approach the 50th anniversary of his speech they needed to do something spectacular. They had to make right the wrong that Mr Powell told them was being perpetrated in letting these people in, they had to burn these landing card that was acting as an obstacle to their endeavour, they had to then ask these people to prove the unprovable, they had to detain them and refuse them cancer treatment, they had to stop those who had left from returning, they had to refuse the advise from those who complained about the wrongness of their practice, they had to make the UK an hostile environment. They have to make windrush people go, they have to take on board the advise given in 1968, they realised it may have been a mistake to ignore it. The windrush migrant had to go, it was a mistake to let them In in the first place. As wanderer correctly stated, the UK was too full to accommodate them. It was a well calculated and executed policy.

I can only say that this is still incompetent. It is nasty, but does not deal with the issue that many of the victims' children were born in the UK before 1983. <<reference removed by moderator>>, it would be a downright dangerous encouragement to disaffection.

I do not believe , when it comes to immigration that anything the conservatives do can ever be described as a mistake or accident.

So do you believe that the documentary difficulties with proving that one was born to settled parents are deliberate? Shirley Williams predicted a bureaucratic mess at the time (1981), and we are seeing more and more of it. For instance, we need either a register of British citizens (or a good approximation thereto - passport office records are only a start) or a simplifying rule such as the second generation born in the UK is automatically British. Passport applications are already asking where grandparents were born, and it is about time to start asking about great grandparents.

It is also worrying that no long term record seems to be being kept about who is known to have acquired settled status.

[secret.simon]

a simplifying rule such as the second generation born in the UK is automatically British.

While not automatic, that is pretty much already the case. Children born in the UK to parents settled in the UK (whether through ILR or PR) are either automatically British or have an entitlement to become so.

Even children born in the UK to parents not settled in the UK, including illegal residents, have a lifelong entitlement to register as British citizens if they were born here and have resided here for the first 10 years of their life.

[Obie]

This was employers inviting them to come, not the UK as a whole. Obvious outsiders in large numbers have never been welcomed by the populace as a whole, not even French Huguenots. For the most part, employers were looking for workers to come and work where the conditions, including housing, were not appealing to the natives in other parts of the country. One of the few exceptions was the poaching of trained medical staff from abroad.

Firstly the employers had no power to invite people to the UK, that power is conferred on the government whom the people elected to represent them. So if the British government invite people to come in, then it is reasonable to assume that the UK invited them.
It may be the case that you or your ancestors never welcomed them, but clearly the representative of the people welcomed them.

Second point, these people came in as British, by virtue of the 1948 acts they were citizens of the colony and entitled to enter the UK.

It goes both ways, you cannot have an empire , rule a country, and refuse the subject of your empire the right to come to your country. France did not do that. These empire were no joking matters, some people were killed , raped, the coloniser clearly made life hard for its subject. I will not go into that matter, as it will complicate the debate if I was to delve into imperialism matter.

[Richard W]

Firstly the employers had no power to invite people to the UK, that power is conferred on the government whom the people elected to represent them. So if the British government invite people to come in, then it is reasonable to assume that the UK invited them.
It may be the case that you or your ancestors never welcomed them, but clearly the representative of the people welcomed them.

Second point, these people came in as British, by virtue of the 1948 acts they were citizens of the colony and entitled to enter the UK.

So, using the modern categories, up until 1962 commonwealth citizens and up until 1968 British nationals could enter the UK uninvited without restriction. Thus there was nothing to stop employers inviting them in.

Secondly, employers have put pressure on governments to allow them to recruit overseas, as witness the continuation of the Tier 2 scheme despite its being contrary to the government immigration targets. It isn't simply a matter of the government being in the pay of the employers; they can also argue that what is good for business is good for the country as a whole.

Thirdly, allowing people in is not the same as welcoming them, as you must surely be aware.

[Obie]

Your argument falls on itself.

Again these people did not need to be allowed in as they have unrestricted right to enter the UK.

They were brought it to the UK by Windrush ship, and hence their collective name.

They were warmly welcomed by the British Goverment, and implored to come in to assist with the rebuilding of the UK.

You may have personal animosity towards them, but the fact remains that they were welcomed by the British government and encouraged and begged to come and assist.

These people are not Tier 2, their situation has no similarities to the Tier 2 migrant. No one need permission to recruit them as they are British citizen. Employer do not need government permission to bring them in.

The British government promised them a home, relocation grants, and implored them to come to the UK to assist in rebuilding, as there was not sufficient people in the labour market to assist.

These people came in and it was through there taxes that the Benefits of the indigenous people were paid.

[Richard W]

a simplifying rule such as the second generation born in the UK is automatically British.

While not automatic, that is pretty much already the case. Children born in the UK to parents settled in the UK (whether through ILR or PR) are either automatically British or have an entitlement to become so.

British citizens cannot be registered as British. Moreover, the dead cannot be registered or naturalised as British. I was thinking in terms of reducing the trail of birth certificates or the hunt for mouldering naturalisation certificates, passports, and bits of plastic. Incidentally, how many generations does a BRP last? (This assumes the government won't simply impound the expired BRPs of the deceased on the first occasion that they're presented, simply on the grounds that they were reported lost.)

[vinny]

It may be a mistake to make such an assumption that they won't destroy BRPs at the first opportunity.

For example, a parent's ILR BRP doesn't last long after naturalisation. This deprives their children born in the UK between parent's ILR and parent's naturalisation of proof of their British citizenship.

[Richard W]

There's also the issue of whether a dead man can satisfy the Home Secretary that he is the father of his illegitimate child. I have not heard a reassuring "of course he can" or even "yes, if he did so while alive". Must we await case law on this issue? Thank goodness a passport application is retrospectively construed as an application for registration.

[Obie]

It is possible for that to be done. The mother can added the details of the deceased unmarried partner to a birth certificate, if the father died before the child is born.

There is a DNA sample which is taken and stored, then a parent can make a Section 55A application to the family court for declaration of parentage, and upon the declaration, this can be added to the birth certificate.