Sit Vac: Home Secretary

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is not accurate. They weren’t told to OBTAIN citizenship. They were told they WERE citizens.

Well my wife's mother is one of the Windrush people and she had to obtain citizenship when either the Immigration Act 1971 or the British National Act 1981 came in, I have not spoke to her yet to confirm exactly when. She told my wife that it was widely known that their status had to be confirmed and documentation completed.
I also heard a woman who came from Ghana around this era on the radio telling the same story.
It not something somebody in public office or in the media could ever mention for obvious reasons.
Also I am not saying that the Home Office behaved in the correct and fair way to this situation.
 
Well my wife's mother is one of the Windrush people and she had to obtain citizenship when either the Immigration Act 1971 or the British National Act 1981 came in, I have not spoke to her yet to confirm exactly when. She told my wife that it was widely known that their status had to be confirmed and documentation completed.

I stand corrected, this has been very poorly reported as I haven’t seen one outlet, academic or government official make this point. I haven’t read the source material but I have read several summaries from people who should know.
 
Hi!
I understood that the 1971 Immigration Act gave Commonwealth citizens, and their wives and children, already resident in the UK indefinite leave to remain.
Interestingly, a Wikipedia page on the many UK immigration acts said this:
These Acts resulted from widespread opposition to immigration in Britain from a variety of political groups, but most notably the Conservative Monday Club, whose Members of Parliament were very active and vocal in their opposition to mass immigration.
 
Once again, who do we deport first?
How long before it's our turn?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.


Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
 
Once again, who do we deport first?
How long before it's our turn?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.


Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.


Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.


Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Emotion is taking over rational thought process again :doh:
 
Hi!
I understood that the 1971 Immigration Act gave Commonwealth citizens, and their wives and children, already resident in the UK indefinite leave to remain.
Interestingly, a Wikipedia page on the many UK immigration acts said this:
These Acts resulted from widespread opposition to immigration in Britain from a variety of political groups, but most notably the Conservative Monday Club, whose Members of Parliament were very active and vocal in their opposition to mass immigration.

That was probably the time my wife's mother applied for her citizenship.
 
Hi!
Yes - I'm sure that all of those people who have been denied homes, pension payments and NHS treatment didn't get emotional.

Oh yes, I nearly forgot - "rational" - don't make me laugh!

No the emotive irrational response is to slip straight into references to exterminating people every time immigration is mentioned.
 
Is the answer a points based system as it says below "Skilled migration now makes up about two-thirds of the 190,000 non-humanitarian places in Australia’s annual migration program, most of the remainder is family reunion"


Trump's immigration plan: could an Australian points model work in the US?

What is the Australian system?


Australia’s points-based system has been decades in development.

It began in the postwar years as a “populate or perish” policy, but from the mid-1990s the focus shifted away from family reunion towards skilled migration, based on points.

The skilled migration stream controls the number and type of workers accepted into the country, and, according to the department of immigration and border protection, is “specifically designed to target migrants who have skills or outstanding abilities that will contribute to the Australian economy”.

Skilled migration now makes up about two-thirds of the 190,000 non-humanitarian places in Australia’s annual migration program. Most of the remainder is family reunion

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ump-immigration-plan-australian-points-system
 
No the emotive irrational response is to slip straight into references to exterminating people every time immigration is mentioned.
Hi!
I quoted Niemöller simply because I imagined that being deported from a country which had given you residence for most of your life must be as devastating as being hauled off to a work camp (or worse). I put myself in their position and empathised for a moment.
The lessons of history are rarely learned; it is not coincidence that the political emphasis behind the all immigration acts from 1962 onwards has come from a right-wing enclave of a right-wing party (of course, without losing sight of the fact that the 1968 act "went through Parliament in three days, supported by the leadership of both the governing Labour and main opposition Conservative parties").
 
I'm struggling to find the correct nomenclature for people who try to "out" others as 'virtue signalling', inferring that it might be anything other than a genuinely held perception of what's right and fair.

I keep thinking of Jeremy Hunt for some reason,
 
I'm struggling to find the correct nomenclature for people who try to "out" others as 'virtue signalling', inferring that it might be anything other than a genuinely held perception of what's right and fair.

I keep thinking of Jeremy Hunt for some reason,

"Virtue signalling" is an insult used against people who try to act like a human decent being.

It says more about the person who uses the phrase, than the target of the insult.
 
Wikepedia "Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing standing within a social group.[1] The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue—especially piety among the religious.[2] In recent years, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as empty, or superficial support of certain political views, and also used within groups to criticize their own members for valuing outward appearance over substantive action"
 
yep - citing virtue signalling is just a form of signalling in itself. The individual is trying to claim a moral or intellectual superiority by kneecapping someone else's view point, simply by saying the words "virtue signalling". It's brilliant and very clever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top