Is control on immigration racist?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
When politicians talk of 'Immigration control' it is code for Black, Asian and East European. They are not talking about restricting entry to white immigrants from Canada, Australia etc.. Therefore, as immigration controls are enforced against certain ethnic groups, they are in fact racist.

Given that I know of Americans and Australians who've been denied leave to remain in this country I don't think that's true.

Correct, they are expected to come up with a bloody good reason for being here.

Unlike certain groups and individuals known to have links with terrorist organisations. But of course deporting the bastards against their will violates the European Convention on Human Rights... for God's sake!!

Clearly there are certain immigrant/asylum seeking people (how can I put this delicately?) without whose presence in our society we'd all be better off.

There! How did I do?

And I suppose that's one of the reasons you need strict border control and immigration policy, economic considerations aside.

EW

___________________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
Given that I know of Americans and Australians who've been denied leave to remain in this country I don't think that's true.

___________________________________________________
There will always be exceptions to the rule, but by and large, a disproportionate amount of immigrants from the areas I've mentioned will be denied entry compared to the U.S. or Australia. You cannot extrapolate from a few incidences to compare with the general trend.
I agree with your comments about Blair. I have no illusions in New Labour regarding a more humane refugee policy. My point is, as Blair out-Tories the Tories, elements of the Tories will feel compelled to move ever further to the right.

___________________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Earwicker:
Unlike certain groups and individuals known to have links with terrorist organisations.
___________________________________________________
I am as fond of Islamic fundamentalism as I am of Dubya's Christian fundamentalism. My objection is to the hypocrisy of Home Secretaries who allow people like Pinochet and Le Pen entry to the U.K. then do thier nuts about 'Muslim terrorists'

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
There will always be exceptions to the rule, but by and large, a disproportionate amount of immigrants from the areas I've mentioned will be denied entry compared to the U.S. or Australia.

There is a big difference between being allowed entry to this country and being allowed to live and work here indefinitely.

I don't personally know any Americans or Australians who've been denied entry, I do know of several who've been denied leave to stay.

Australia and America both have visa waiver arrangements with the UK, so generally people from there don't have to apply for a visa (one potential point for denial of entry) or turn up in this country needing a visa but not being having one (another potential denial of entry point). Also I wasn't aware that our immigration and visa laws differed according to someones race (e.g. a black American should be treated the same as a white one) but obviously it can and does differ according to the arrangements in place with different countries.

If any immigration or border control officer was to treat two people from the same country differently because of their race then that would clearly be racist. For them to treat two people differently because they come from different countries isn't necessarily racist and in fact would probably be in accordance with the law.

Steve G
You are assuming the law is impartially applied and operates above prejudice. My question would be, why are the requirements for certain countries (Lets say Somalia) different for the U.S. or Australia. Of course there should be no difference between how a black and white citizen of any country is treated, but that is just not the case, as I expect you'd agree. As I've already said, this is not an abstract argument. People from certain countries are treated differently by our immigration services than certain other countries.
It is quite deliberate that it is made more problematic for certain people to enter or stay in the U.K. as a concequence of their nationality OR race,

What with Islam being a recognised World Major Religion and the affore-mentioned Mosques in Uk & Here (I have one just next door to me) are indeed financed and built by their brethren, I can only assume like other large accepted religions that they maybe get a bit of tax relief for their troubles, as well as the "Unconditional" Social work & benefits they bring to all members of communities (mainly the poorer ones ) without the good old emotional blackmail aspect being a trick in the tail (ie, unconditional like I said). Major British Firms like BP & M&S etc, regularly set off major losses made out of UK (eg Europe) onto British Tax Relief & Breaks (it's all there to be had if you're interested) so how can this possibly be in the public interest ? and runs into £ Billions of squid that dwarfs the peanuts being squibbled over regarding immigration costs. As I recently said all asylum seekers currently have & must carry ID cards in UK, so that argument's out of the window for a start too. I think of the earlier comments made by someone regarding non English speaking folk (taking phone orders etc) and if I'm not mistaken ( references from the ground please) the NHS amognst others have pooled out many information centres cum Call Centres via India etc, and there have already been many a communication breakdown problem with folk trying to get important info etc, my point being it's a money saving excercise (a potentially very dangerous one) which breaks all logic in my view. The average Londoner doesn't have a clue what the average Glaswegian is on about and vise versa, to give but one of many British dialectical examples, and I suspect that like many of those I was brought up with from ex commonwealth countries etc, they are FULL BRITISH PASSPORT HOLDERS innit.


Fritz Von I is a Immigrant for 25 years nearly, innit

My goodness, an uncharacteristically sensible post from B.F.
What an eye opener this thread is turning out to be.

False sense of security John, don't trust nobody, lock up yer daughters, innit.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
You are assuming the law is impartially applied and operates above prejudice.

If a law is not impartially applied does that make the law wrong? I'm sure there are racists within the immigration and border control services. In Ireland there was a recent case where a border control officer was sacked for religious bigotry after targetting protestants for harrasment.

quote:

My question would be, why are the requirements for certain countries (Lets say Somalia) different for the U.S. or Australia. Of course there should be no difference between how a black and white citizen of any country is treated, but that is just not the case, as I expect you'd agree.

In this country I've never seen black citizens of a country being treated differently from white citizens of the same country. At a border crossing I have seen UK passport holders treated differently depending on what accent they had though.

quote:

As I've already said, this is not an abstract argument. People from certain countries are treated differently by our immigration services than certain other countries.
It is quite deliberate that it is made more problematic for certain people to enter or stay in the U.K. as a concequence of their nationality OR race,

I don't see how you can say that UK immigration policy deliberately makes it difficult for someone to enter this country as a consequence of their race. Of their nationality yes, of their financial situation yes (and I'm not arguing the rights or wrongs of either of those) - but I've never seen it just due to their race. Perhaps the situation is different in the south of England though?

What with there being well over 600 ports of entry into the UK I bet all sorts of Mickey Mouse bullshit regularly occurs²., innit ?


Fritz Von I'll take the green channel Guv

Steve G.
I have lived in the south of England for many years but I grew up in Glasgow and often witnessed racism towards Asians (not to mention sectarian bigotry).
I'm truly staggered that you have never experienced people being treated less favourably on the basis of skin colour, but if that is your experience then so be it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steve G:

Did your friends give a reason for what appears on the face of it to be clear bigotry?

Unfortunately there are a few people up here like that but fortunately most don't feel that way. Don't confuse the fact that most Scots want England to lose at the footie with any real hatred etc. Yes you'll get some nasty anti-English people up here (comments on this thread and others about ridding England of Scottish politicians might indicate England has a reciprical problem) but the vast majority have no issue with the English in general. As my mother is English I certainly don't.

YES,
They were English , and I must say, that In a lot of instances I don't blame them
oldie.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
I'm truly staggered that you have never experienced people being treated less favourably on the basis of skin colour, but if that is your experience then so be it.

On reading my post it would appear I'm not clear enough - what I meant was that at immigration or passport control in this country I've never seen two people from the same country treated differently due to the colour of their skin.

I haven't seen a lot of racism in this country thankfully but I have seen a few nasty incidents. I was at an old-firm football match when a sizeable contingent of the Celtic support through bananas at the black Rangers player Mark Walters, one of the most disgusting things I've ever witnessed.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned; but as most of Western Europe have declining birth rates we actively need immigration if we are to be able to support an ageing population with pensions and health care.

The media (and I guess public) often muddle immigration with asylum, which doesn't help the debate.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
My goodness, an uncharacteristically sensible post from B.F.
What an eye opener this thread is turning out to be.

That's two comprehensible posts out of 4000.

Not bad!



Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

Clearly there are certain immigrant/asylum seeking people (how can I put this delicately?) without whose presence in our society we'd all be better off.


EW

I assume you aren't suggesting there are not actually more british citizens who fit that criteria?



Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

Clearly there are certain immigrant/asylum seeking people (how can I put this delicately?) without whose presence in our society we'd all be better off.


EW

I assume you aren't suggesting there are not actually more british citizens who fit that criteria?



Stephen

As a Scottish friend of mine always says, "there's good and bad in every f*cker!" And I ken what he means.

Nonetheless, there's a world of difference between general decadence - even criminality - and intrinsic, fundamental malice. Your average British scumbag is merely decadent and idle, and in some cases criminal.

A society IS the sum of its parts...

EW