Shameful Argument

Alasdair Palmer rather comes up with a shameful argument in his attempt to castigate the Law Lords over their rejection of the government\’s restrictions upon "sham marriages".

Firstly, he seems to have caught the "planning" bug.

About the only thing everyone agrees is that deciding the optimum level of immigration is a crucial element of public policy, and one which, in a democracy, needs to be decided by the British people.

His argument is that by planning immigration you can plan the number of people in the country and that this is an obviously desirable thing to do. Which opens all sorts of horrible cans of worms. For of course, to control population in this manner you also need to control emigration. Exit visas anyone?

Further, the number of children an immigrant has is clearly vital to such planning. The best determinant, on average, of such fertility is the female lifetime fertility of the country of origin. But this also weighs much more heavily upon women than it does men.

So such planning requires that different criteria apply to men and women from the same country and to women from countries with different fertility levels. Allowing in, (just to make up numbers) 100 Somali women, where the fertility rate is say 7 children per lifetime (I insist that these are made up numbers!) has the same effect as allowing in 700 Russian men where the fertility rate is about 1.13 or something.

It\’s in the second and third generations that immigrant fertility patterns converge with that of the indigenes.

Plan that dickhead!

Further, do we really think that this is something that can or should be planned through the democratic method?

Secondly, there are really only four areas of immigration. Economic immigration from outside the EU, familial such, asylum seekers and EU immigration. The last two vastly outweigh the first two. in impact, both short and long term. We\’ve also already signed away any rights to restrict or control those by said "democratic method".

Unless we leave the EU and certain UN treaties we cannot control them in any manner whatsoever and they are the two main drivers of our immigration.

Now I agree that I\’m in favour of human beings being able to live wherever they want but I\’m not sure how this can be combined with a welfare state: but that viewpoint doesn\’t change any of the above. Nor does it change the following argument.

At least, almost everyone agrees. One group certainly does not: our senior judges. They believe they should have the final word on this critical matter.

Four weeks ago, the Law Lords ruled that an important part of the Government\’s attempt to control immigration was an illegal violation of human rights.

Yes, quite right. The Law Lords that is.

Whether you think the original decision was a good idea or not we\’ve signed up to a number of international treaties (both UN and EU I think) which enshrine the right to marry as a human right, as a civil liberty.

The role of the law in the civil liberties field is not to protect malefactors from righteous punishment or the banning of their activities. It is, in fact, to protect us from the effects of that democratic method. From that tyranny of the majority. If marriage, whether you met 5 minutes ago, speak the same language or not, are doing it for the visa or for a decent shag (although there are some generations of experience to tell us that the hopes of that last can be forlorn), is indeed one of those civil liberties then that\’s what the judges should be protecting.

Just as they should be protecting your right to a fair trial, whether the crime you\’re accused of is rape, complex financial fraud or beating up a granny.

If we start deciding that civil liberties don\’t apply to all then they\’re not civil liberties, are they?

To ensure that marriages were genuine, the Immigration Act required that people whose only claim to legal residence was through their spouse should present themselves to the Home Office.

Officials would then decide whether or not to issue a "certificate of approval" for their marriage: no certificate of approval, no right to stay in Britain.

Mhmmmm. What a wonderful world. Rule by bureaucratic fiat, not rule by law.

Me, I\’ll take the law thank you.

 

 

19 comments on “Shameful Argument

  1. I don’t really see the exit visa argument. As I understand it, the procedure works as a simple balance. If 300K people leave in year 1 then 300K people can come in, if 100K people leave in year 2 then 100K people can come in. The input is determined by the level of output but the output level is natural. This seems fair enough to me. I take your points about EU and asylum immigration. I would like us to leave the EU (the political side, not the trade side) and problem A would then be solved. We could easily remove ourselves from the UN asylum treaty (which was put together for a very different world than the one we now live in). I understand though that voiding this treaty would have ramifications for our membership of the European council, and so might trigger the negotiation of our EU membership in any event – perhaps a “domino” function that our politicians might one day use to sort some of these issues out.

  2. Since when has a sham marriage completed solely for the purpose of circumventing the law (here it’s immigration law) been a human right?

    A sham marriage for the purpose, say, of tax evasion would not be so protected.

  3. Tim, you need to add “EEA” to “EU” when talking about migration. We, as citizens, benefit hugely from free movement to EU and EEA countries: any of us can up sticks at any time and (with a few hours paperwork only) live in another country. It makes fleeing Britain a doddle, something we’ll come to value particularly highly in the near future.

  4. The Great Simpleton;

    Ummm… I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “right of return”? People emigrating are becoming the citizens of another country, they then have the same rights of entry into the UK as any other citizen of their adopted home, they don’t have “rights of return”. If you mean ex-pat, my personal view is that we are well rid of such people (given their incessant whining comments on UK news sites like the DT and DM) – but no, I am not including ex-pats as those who have left. I was addressing the point about emigration/exit visas as it appears in the piece.

  5. “… my personal view is that we are well rid of such people …”

    Exactly the kind of arrogant anglo-centric comment that makes me think that I’m well rid of you and your country.

    Twat

  6. “People emigrating are becoming the citizens of another country.”

    No, they aren’t. You need to come up to speed with how emigration actually works my friend. Until that time, you’ll forgive me for writing off everything you’ve said so far as “utter bollocks”.

  7. Jack

    “People emigrating are becoming the citizens of another country”

    Ah…I didn’t know that there were countries out there that gave out citizenship immediately… Seems to me that you first become a resident and then after some time has passed (somewhere around 4-10 years) you have the choice af applying for citizenship.

    Now the word “immigration” typically refers to recidency, not citizenship – which is natural since you primarily add/destroy value to the country you reside in and not the country of which you are a citizen

  8. Peter Spence = ignorant, glad we got rid of you.

    Kay Tie; I’m up to speed with hom emigration works, thanks for asking.

    Emil; You set up a straw man and knocked it down.

  9. Jask,

    No one knows everything, ignorance of a topic should not be a cause for shame.

    If you’re up to speed on emigration, perhaps you can direct me to the UK Government web-site that details UK exit visas?

    An additional problem, you’ve not addressed. A lot of (if not most) UK citizens who gain foreign citizenship do so as dual-citizenship. Are you going to remove this option?

  10. “Further, do we really think that this is something that can or should be planned through the democratic method?”

    Well at present it is being planned and implemented in a highly undemocratic way, in the teeth of widespread public opposition, and that is why thousands of indigenous English people are leaving the country.

    No party has dared put immigration to the vote. This is because they already know what the overwhelming verdict of the electorate would be.
    The voters want it to end.

  11. “Kay Tie; I’m up to speed with hom emigration works, thanks for asking.”

    The educational ideology of reinforcing self-belief has got a lot to answer for (although it makes for great car crash TV when Simon Cowell is the first person to tell a talentless chav the truth).

  12. “that is why thousands of indigenous English people are leaving the country.”

    I wonder how much introspection is required to realise that “it’s full of dirty filthy foreigners here, I’m off to another country” is deeply ironic?

    The forums on britishexpats.com are full of whining ex-Brits complaining about how Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. is filling up with wogs (they don’t say “wogs” mostly, they say “Asians”, but we all follow the code).

  13. The forums on britishexpats.com are full of whining ex-Brits complaining about how Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. is filling up with wogs (they don’t say “wogs” mostly, they say “Asians”, but we all follow the code).

    Oh absolutely!
    All white anglophone people are just so racist you know?

    But don’t worry, the differential birth rates will soon solve all our problems.

  14. “All white anglophone people are just so racist you know?”

    Obviously the answer to my question is “More introspection than Monty is capable of”.

    You might also like to tell us precisely what “indigenous” means in your prior post. How many generations is long enough to count? Came over with the Romans? Descended from invading Saxons? Or perhaps Huguenots in the 1600s? Jews from the 1930s? Does Boris Johnson count as indigenous enough for you? (he does have a filthy Turk in his gene pool you know).

  15. Peter Spence = ignorant, glad we got rid of you.

    The delight is mutual I can tell you.

    I wonder how much introspection is required to realise that “it’s full of dirty filthy foreigners here, I’m off to another country” is deeply ironic?

    None at all because in my experience nobody leaves the UK for that reason.

    “It makes fleeing Britain a doddle, something we’ll come to value particularly highly in the near future”. I doubt you’d do that – all your posts suggest that you’re happy where you are.

  16. “How many generations is long enough to count? ”

    Every generation that fought, and risked life and limb in the defence of their homeland.
    That counts. They won. They won the territory.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>