I guess so.
The children of Windrush
- Thread starter Tropi
- Start date
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
I'm hoping a lot of compensation will eventually come to all those who have lost jobs and been denied healthcare/benefits and especially those who've been held in detention centres.
Where there's blame. There's a claim. You Home Office fucks.
Where there's blame. There's a claim. You Home Office fucks.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
It would, but you can get 5 grand fine or even porridge for disrupting a flight.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
Worst care scenario, but there may be little left to lose anyway. It may even be preferable to end up in a British jail and play for time rather than get forcibly removed to another country.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
People have died from the 'restraint techniques' used during deportations. And the guilty parties walked free.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Charmed I'm sure
I didn't put this on the Brixton forum because that wasn't the place for yet another debate about Brexit!
But I'm perfectly open with people about which way I voted (out) and why ( to reduce immigration)
If that makes me a ' right wing cunt' so be it, there are a lot of us out there in that case.
Having a look at my posts today. Stand by what I posted.
However I shouldn't have got abusive and apoligise for that.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
Very true. Though I'd still probably be using every trick in the book if they tried to forcibly extradite me on a plane full of holidaymakers. No way I'd let G4S take me away quietly.
I was looking at a family tree at the weekend and was reminded that most of my family immigrated to Lancashire from Ireland in the 20s – only a generation before Windrush. Funny, as I’d never really thought of myself as from an immigrant family before… it’s been dwelling on my mind ever since, especially in the light of these political ructions this week.
So... to answer your question: I don’t think future generations should be denied the opportunities my great-grandparents, and the Windrush generation, and all the other generations of immigrants to this country were allowed (often reluctantly). I don’t think anyone should be prevented from living and working and making a life for themselves wherever they choose. And I don’t just think that should be true for commonwealth immigrants, I think it should be true for people from anywhere in the world.
That’s the position we should we starting off at – not ‘how do we stop these 2.6 billion people coming here and camping out in my benefits’, but ‘how do we manage a world with full free movement of people’.
It’s a difficult question, and I can’t say I have the answer – it’s certainly impossible to imagine under the current geopolitical conditions we live in - but that’s the question we should be working hard to answer, not how do we build a strong enough wall to keep the bastards out – which really is the only other response.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Not to have a go at you here but it perhaps should be pointed out that the Windrush generation were not immigrants, at least in the sense of people from the Republic moving to the UK would have been or that people moving from Jamaica to the UK would be now. They were British passport holders moving from one area ruled by the British state to another one - ie: they were doing what I did when I moved from North Wales to London.
A very good post, actually.
I don't care. That's not why I think their rights should be defended.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
there is of course another response, which is can people be made comfortable where they are. that large numbers of people are unhappy where they are can be seen from the number of people risking death to get over the med etc. i am not persuaded that the choice is 'how do we manage a world with full free movement of people' v 'build a big wall', as a great deal of movement in the world is not free.
This is an important part of the how do we manage a world of free movement question. Probably the most important part.
Yes, and that is broadly the approach I would take, thats why, for example, I think overseas aid is money well spent.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
You should care though; they are after all the best evidence that exists in order to help answer your question "how do we manage a world with full free movement of people".
this is good, i was thinking of posting it earlier but thought I was posting too many links to twitter.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
Really not enough facepalms for this one.
Home Office destroyed Windrush landing cards, says ex-staffer
Home Office destroyed Windrush landing cards, says ex-staffer
Sure, it's sort of useful as far as that's concerned, but atm it's something that's being used as a wedge to create the good immigrant (not an immigrant at all actually!) / bad immigrant dichotomy.
Really not enough facepalms for this one.
Home Office destroyed Windrush landing cards, says ex-staffer
I am neither surprised or shocked.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Hard to see how that isn't a deliberate act; they should be at Kew (and indeed the pre-1960 passenger lists are).
teuchter
je suis teuchter
What should we do in the meantime though. While we are "working hard" to answer the right questions rather than the wrong questions - what do we do? Open borders or not? It's a legitimate question.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
You should've seen the bulk of documents I needed to produce to prove that my wife and I lived together continuously in the UK in our recent Home Office application for leave to remain (not to mention the £2.3k fee).
Not satisfied with a UK marriage certificate from a UK registrar, nor an officially recognised English Language certificate, nor a Life in the UK test certificate (passed), nor countless other previous applications which include biometric data card, police registration certificates, National Insurance numbers, wage slips, fingerprints, photos, passports, etc etc - They required six original (not photocopied or home printed) and acceptable items of official correspondence in both of our names - spread across the entirety of the period from which the application is based on. And these could only be from an approved list of correspondents - (e.g. gas company, water, council tax, bank, phone etc) which meant that I had to try set up the accounts so they are as much as possible in both of our names, and pay extra to have printed bills sent in the mail.
The only thing is, many utility companies don't allow for joint names on bills. They can only have one person listed because the computer says no. So that ruled out the phone company (Virgin) and the water company (Thames Water). And as we have separate bank accounts, there is no joint statement to offer here. The only things conclusively in both of our names are the council tax bill and the gas/electric company bill (Eon).
So, without enough original and official bills in joint names, the Home Office state you then have to provide items of correspondence addressed individually on top of what you can provide. For example - Four items of correspondence in joint names to the same address and two items addressed to each partner at the address. In total eight items would need to be submitted. And if you and your partner have no bills or correspondence in joint names, you need to submit twelve items (six each) of correspondence, evidencing that you reside together at the same address! Then the impracticality of the whole system really demonstrates itself. What if you only have a PAYG phone with no bills? What if you don't have a landline phone? What if you only use electric power on a key meter? You're basically fucked because you will never have enough documents to satisfy them of their demands. So your right to live with your spouse is void.
And the Home Office weren't able keep one slip of paper which is the only evidence of these peoples right to live here? Fucking bollocks.
Not satisfied with a UK marriage certificate from a UK registrar, nor an officially recognised English Language certificate, nor a Life in the UK test certificate (passed), nor countless other previous applications which include biometric data card, police registration certificates, National Insurance numbers, wage slips, fingerprints, photos, passports, etc etc - They required six original (not photocopied or home printed) and acceptable items of official correspondence in both of our names - spread across the entirety of the period from which the application is based on. And these could only be from an approved list of correspondents - (e.g. gas company, water, council tax, bank, phone etc) which meant that I had to try set up the accounts so they are as much as possible in both of our names, and pay extra to have printed bills sent in the mail.
The only thing is, many utility companies don't allow for joint names on bills. They can only have one person listed because the computer says no. So that ruled out the phone company (Virgin) and the water company (Thames Water). And as we have separate bank accounts, there is no joint statement to offer here. The only things conclusively in both of our names are the council tax bill and the gas/electric company bill (Eon).
So, without enough original and official bills in joint names, the Home Office state you then have to provide items of correspondence addressed individually on top of what you can provide. For example - Four items of correspondence in joint names to the same address and two items addressed to each partner at the address. In total eight items would need to be submitted. And if you and your partner have no bills or correspondence in joint names, you need to submit twelve items (six each) of correspondence, evidencing that you reside together at the same address! Then the impracticality of the whole system really demonstrates itself. What if you only have a PAYG phone with no bills? What if you don't have a landline phone? What if you only use electric power on a key meter? You're basically fucked because you will never have enough documents to satisfy them of their demands. So your right to live with your spouse is void.
And the Home Office weren't able keep one slip of paper which is the only evidence of these peoples right to live here? Fucking bollocks.
Last edited:
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It's a question that's only seeing one side of the issue, though. It's based on a presentation of only part of the issue as if it was the whole issue. Accepting that this is the whole issue and seeing it as separable from its context is how we get policies like quotas.
Should humans exist without borders? Yes, of course. This is our planet. We are humans. The polities which divide up the land and sea are not natural phenomena; they are created. They are created by people. In the interests of the people? Well, they say so. They say the interests of those who live here (or here, or here) are served by this polity, this state, this edifice of bureaucratic undertaking. But that's not really the case. The rights, the property, the freedom being protected is that of local capital.
The response of the state is the response of local capital.
The response of the working class must be working class solidarity. And that's the side that's missed in this narrative. But don't mistake solidarity for an order from above to be generous. Solidarity is a two way bond. It is horizontal. It is not a top down command.
I'm a descendant of immigrants in a very similar (though not identical) set of circumstances to the post war "Commonwealth Immigrants". Like them, my ancestors were told they came from a land that was not to be seen as distinct from the centre. It was then, but is not now, part of a greater entity of which Great Britain, and England in particular, was to be seen, so the official version went, as the Motherland. Like them, they came because they were told their labour was wanted. And like them they discovered the welcome was scant and not universal.
And the divide that was thereby created was very much a tool of rule.
In response, many of the immigrants of my ancestors' day worked hard to create a politics of working class solidarity. And it was a hard slog. And 140 years later it is still not entirely won. People from my background are still seen by some as other.
But that doesn't mean the endeavour to build solidarity, to build networks of mutual aid, to build bonds of trust is not worth undertaking. It is worth it. Nor is it a passive act. It is neither meek nor mild, it is a show of strength. Both altruistic and reciprocal, it benefits the participants. It is not cerebral, but practical. It is our best response to attack.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I've heard similar stories from people who in the end have simply given up, and both left the country.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
It's basically a denial of right to a family life, a human right, and this should rightly be up in front of the The European Court of Human Rights.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Looking at the question, and seeing it as inseparable from its context, and carefully thinking about all that context, and so on, what is your answer? Should we have completely open borders, or something else? I don't mean in a notional future, I mean in the present, right now.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I gave my answer. In some detail.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
You gave a detailed post that didn't answer the question you quoted.
Unless when you said
that meant that you think the UK should, in the immediate future, open all its borders fully?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
You're still thinking in terms of this state or that. You're ignoring much of the ledger. Interestingly, the more important side in the circumstances.
Similar threads
