Bring on the Common Good

The BBC's Sports Editor came to the UK from India as a student in 1969.
The British High Commissioner in New Delhi has proudly issued 44,000 student visas this year. There was no mention on BBC Radio 4's The New Art of Diplomacy (15 December) about any of them returning home after completing their studies.
It is because the UK is such an attractive destination (for which history plays a major part) that, regardless of whether native British men can live and work abroad through marriage, it is necessary for the UK to close that particular loophole by which foreign and Commonwealth men can take up permanent residence in the UK.
The burning issue of equality is trumped by relativism with reference to the common good.

50 Years On

On 7 December 1959 I arrived in Kobe, Japan, for the first time: with a tourist visa.
If you wanted to change your visa status you couldn't do it in Japan - you had to leave the country and apply for it outside Japan - usually Hong Kong or the Republic of Korea.
Such is not the case with the UK.
Foreigners (from outside the EU) who arrive with tourist, student, work (there are more than 80 different categories, according to former Home Secretary David Blunkett), other, or no visa are legally able to continue to live in the UK after their time limit.
The Government's Migration Advisory Committee has (belatedly! - 4 December 2009) recommended that the concession that enables foreign students with low qualifications to stay on and work, be ended.
Even if the Government does that, these students will still be able to employ the well-worn ruse that everyone knows - marriage.

Avoiding the issue

Top news today is that the Government is to impose classes upon children as young as 5 that violence against women is unacceptable.
The Government should address the cause of violence against women and amend the law.
The law in question is the one that allows foreign and Commonwealth men to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Since it is natural that men, more than women, want to occupy other people's territory, this is one of the main reasons for the (long ongoing) surplus of young men in Britain compared with young women.
One result of which is that many men marry women they do not really want to (including yours truly).
If the man wants out there is then the problem of who gets the family home.
If children are involved, there is no question but that the woman gets it.
It's no wonder that some men get exasperated beyond endurance...............

Road to Redemption

Lord Carey described Nick Grifin's views as "irredeemably evil". All is change, and Christians are supposed to believe that no one is beyond redemption.
Hamlet said: There is nothing either good or bad but that thinking makes it so.
Enoch Powell described immigration into the UK as a "preventable evil".
The Conservatives promised in 1979 to end the concession to foreign men that enables them to live in the UK through marriage. The Conservatives did not keep their promise. (Parliament voted on this issue in December 1982 and January 1983.)
The Conservatives are in a position to redeem themselves if they win the next general election.
But they are beyond redemption......

The Road to Strasbourg

Immediately after Nick Griffin was elected Member of the European Parliament he was interviewed by John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. When Mr. Griffin described the native British as "second-class citizens" Mr. Humphrys replied: "Ridiculous! How can that be since most MPs are white?"
Mr. Griffin made no response, so I was not optimistic he would do well on last night's Question Time.
It is obvious some native Britons are second-class citizens as a result of foreign and Commonwealth men being able to live and work in the UK through marriage. This not only gives them the privilege of being able to choose which country to live in (their own or this one) but entitles them (by law) to compete with native British men for work and promotion. (Naturally, for every winner there is a loser.)
P.S. Mr. Humphrys could have responded impartially by asking Mr. Griffin to justify his remark.
Plus, the semantics give the game away. He didn't say "British", let alone "native British". Japan recently had (still has?) a European Member of Parliament (a Finnish missionary), but it is inconceivable that anyone in Japan would say that most MPs are yellow.

The Road to Calais

BBC's Andrew Hoskins (today's From Our Own Correspondent, Radio 4) says that most of the illegal migrants who congregate in Calais manage to get to England. He said that, according to the Dublin Convention, if they want to claim asylum they are obliged to claim it in the first EU country they enter, which is usually Greece.
Therefore, having made it to England (without passports or visas), they are here illegally and their claims for asylum are invalid.
The British Government is also acting illegally.
Today the Equality and Human Rights Commission expressed opposition to the British National Party appearing on BBC TV's Question Time .
Let's hope Mr. Griffin points out the Government's illegal activities (which are doubtless supported by the EHRC - though it would not if it lived up to its name).
The connection with marriage and migration is that they are all young men and teenage boys. So the ratio of young men to women in the UK is being deliberately unbalanced. Even if they are subject to deportation they can thwart that by finding someone to marry.

Road to Rouen Reveals Revenge

People who do not have British nationality are foreigners. In France people are foreigners if they do not have French nationality.
BBC Radio 4's Today programme today referred to hundreds of young men in Calais as "illegal migrants". This bestows on them an acknowledgement of their continuing to be somewhere where they have no "right" to be.
A Frenchmen who helps them was proud to do so as, he said, France was the originator of "human rights".
What are "rights" but a semantic instrument to affect a nation's law - which may be good, bad, or indifferent. (A rare exception is the expression "Right of reply".)
Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "Everyone's right to life shall be protected...." It has been suggested, therefore, that soldiers who are killed in combat have had their rights violated (by their own Government).
The reason soldiers enlist is to protect their country.
Therefore there is no "human right" more important than immigration control. Which, if functioning properly, protects a country from foreign occupation without recourse to violence.
Yet when an Englishman (yours truly) complained to the European Commission of Human Rights (10 June 1977) about foreign and Commonwealth men using marriage as a means of living and working in the UK, it was not investigated - on the grounds that I had not been a victim of a decision by a public body.
Subsequently (12 May 1982), the ECHR determined in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live and work in the UK. Article 12 - "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right." - was cited.
Article 12 concedes the precedence of national laws.
Nevertheless, the Conservative Government that was elected in 1979 to end this concession to foreign men did not do so.
Native British men have been reduced to second-class citizens, which the spread of the English language has done nothing to ameliorate.
There's a Union Jack at the entrance to Eglise Saint-Maclou in Rouen (where Joan of Arc was burnt by the English in 1431) together with a notice in English saying "... women, men and children" have worshipped there.
That word order is contrary to normal English usage. And promotes conflict.
It is hard to believe that the Church is in favour of conflict. Nor that Jesus Christ would have used that word order. It has nothing to do with Christianity, or God, or Good.

For Whom the Bell Tolls

Fifteen British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan these past ten days.(The wounded hardly get a mention.....)
Contrast this with the every (work-)day battle that goes on at the Immigration Offices in Croydon, and elsewhere.
The story so far......
The Conservatives failed to keep their 1979 election promise to end the concession whereby foreign men can live and work in the UK through marriage.
One reason they didn't is because the European Commission of Human Rights determined in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK.
That was 12 May 1982, when the Falklands Conflict was at its height. 255 British servicemen died (a similar number has, apparently, subsequently committed suicide).
Then as now, while British servicemen are being killed and wounded, foreign and Commonwealth men are being allowed to occupy these islands.
The reason the European Commission of Human Rights was established was to prevent a repitition of some of the atrocities of the Second World War. Therefore, the last thing it should do is enable people from outside Europe to take up permanent residence in member states.
A basic tenet behind the concept of "rights" is Equality.
But, there is no Equality between British servicemen and foreigners occupying the UK. Nor with the army - an army arraigned against native British men - of people employed on large salaries in the Equality industry.

The Once and Future Fraud

One of the principal reasons people voted for Mrs Thatcher on 3 May 1979 was her promise to restrict immigration into the UK.
As a result, the National Front vote was roughly halved and the Party itself collapsed.
Before that very month (May '79) was out Mrs Thatcher authorised Vietnamese to be allowed to settle in the UK. (Some of the "boat people" had travelled overland to Hong Kong.)
In June and July ('79) some 75,000 Iranians emigrated to the UK. (BBC Radio 4, 12 January 2009.)
On 12 August ('79) my Japanese girl friend and I were refused entry to St. Helier. The Home Office (falsely) described Kazuko-san as "not a genuine visitor", and we had to return to St. Malo.
The Immigration Officer asked: "What do you think of us?"
"You're only doing your job," I replied. "It's up to the politicians to sort this matter out."
"Hear! Hear!" responded his junior.
At the end of October 1979 the Immigration Minister, Timothy Raison, when asked (on BBC Radio 4) why the Government had backed down over its promise to end the concession to foreign husbands who wanted to live in the UK replied: "Because of the fuss."
The House of Commons voted on this issue in December 1982 (the year of the Falklands Conflict), but failed to get it through.
In January, Mrs Thatcher told the Conservatives they had to show unity because there would be a general election that year. Conservative opposition collapsed, and the bill was passed.
The figure 75,000 (above) is deceptive, because as a result of "chain migration" through marriage, Iranians (Vietnamese, Commonwealth citizens, etc.) are entitled to take up permanent residence here ad inifinitum.
The so-called Iron Lady was fraudulent.

Foreign Concessions

3 May will be the 30th anniversary of Mrs. Thatcher's election triumph.
As she stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street she proclaimed that though other Prime Ministers had not kept their election promises, she would.
Her most famous saying as Prime Minister was "The lady is not for turning!"
Yet she did not keep her 1979 election promise to restrict migration to the UK. Specifically, to "end the concession" to foreign men that allows them to live and work in the UK through the expedience of marriage.
"Concession" is the right word, for several reasons.
One is that marriage to a British woman (or a woman with "indefinite leave to remain" in the UK) does not prevent them from living together in his country.
Another is that it is men principally who contest the territorial imperative.
Another is that migration imbalances the ratio of the sexes of young people.
Paul Foot points out in Immigration and Race in British Politics that there would not be so many Asian and Afro-Caribbean people in the UK if it were not for the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. This is because the few (young men) who were here intended going back to their own countries after they had made some money. But they could not leave after July 1962 (when the Act came into force) because they feared they would not be allowed back in again (on an unrestricted basis). Also, there was a rush of young men to enter the UK in the first half of 1962.
Naturally, those who "could not" leave looked for native British women to marry.
Furthermore, those who missed the deadline and entered the UK as tourists or students would look for someone to marry in order to stay here permanently.
It is normal for men who go to other countries to have a specific work reason to do so. That entitles them to a visa. When the job is finished, or they are replaced, they go home. The loophole of marriage means that not only can they find any work (or unemployment benefit) but they are legally entitled to deprive native British men of work and promotion in the name of "equality"!
No wonder the UK is a desirable destination. The efforts of our forefathers in spreading the English language is another reason. As is the ending of conscription in 1962.
Foreign and Commonwealth men who come here have children; progeny boosts their individual claim to the place and consolidates their community's power.
I used to want children - but not since the Summer of 1962.
Mrs Thatcher should have kept her word.

Commissions, Heal Thyselves!

According to Trevor Phillips, of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show today, the UK is "by far, and I mean by far, the best place in Europe to live in if you're not white."
It's no wonder, then, that so many Asian and African men want to come here.
Mr. Phillips, no doubt, also wants them to.
In order to acquire permanent residence, Asian and African men look for someone to marry.
And that is a cause of much unhappiness to many native British men (including me).
The European Commission of Human Rights had a normative case to prevent this unhappiness. Instead, it determined (11 May 1982) in favour of foreign and Commonwealth men who want to occupy the UK in this way.

Dover chalk: Morinaga cheese

Thirteen years ago a Japanese said that in Britain the women are at war with the men and the men don't fight back. He asked if I agreed. I did.
If men don't fight back it's not a war, it's a wa-lkover.
My complaint of 10 June 1977 to the European Commission of Human Rights about foreign and Commonwealth men being allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage was a preemptive strike. I knew the opposition was gearing up to take their case to the ECHR. Which they duly did - and were successful on 11 May 1982.
In Japan the decision to allow foreign men to live and work there through marriage was taken in 1982. The law came into effect on 1 January 1985.
This may give the impression of equality.
But like is not being compared with like.
Japan is bigger than the UK. The Japanese language is a protection; it is difficult and distinct. The Japanese do not have people from many different and distant countries assembling on the Eurasian mainland trying to get across. (Instead, they have their cousins - the Chinese.) Nor do they have soldiers dying in far and distant lands.
Only the UK had a Commonwealth Immigration Act, brought into effect on 1 July 1962, after a deliberate delay to allow as many Comonwealth citizens as wanted to to enter the place. This resulted in a rush of young men.
It's a weak Pound to a strong Euro that, with rare exceptions, the people in, and heading for, the Channel ports targeting the UK today are, likewise, young men.
History matters: Britain is the mother of feminism.
People in transnational (outside the EU) marriages are often in a privileged position, because they have a choice of two countries in which to live.

Encore Beyond Belief

The Daily Telegraph, 30 December 2008, page 13, Headline: "Calais opens shelter for British-bound migrants"
"There are currently an estimated 2,000 migrants sleeping rough in the Calais area, with most claiming to come from countries such as Afghanistan and Eritrea."
If they are in France illegally it's up to the French to deport them.
Monsieur Le Pen said, while leader of the Front Nationale, that if he came to power he'd deport such people to Britain. This is because Tony Blair accused him of being a racist.
On BBC Radio 3's Belief (30 December 2008), the novelist A.N. Wilson said that no one has a feeling of identity in this archipelago any more.
That, doubtless, is why many Scots vote for the Scottish National Party.
Meanwhile, scarcely a day goes by but that we hear of British soldiers dying in Afghanistan.
All of which reinforces my belief that the European Court of Human Rights acted wrongly when it determined in favour of three women (29 May 1985) whose complaint was that their husbands were not allowed to live and work in the UK.
The UK's problems are peculiar to itself, and the Council of Europe was set up to ameliorate (and/or prevent) them - not exacerbate them.