The children of Windrush

[Treacle Toes]

Umm... you didn't understand. You wrongly thought it was a reference to a different joke.

You know it's ok just to say you were wrong, sometimes?

FFs you are a relentless, sneering twit. You know I want no engagement at all with you but you keep at it. You then get all hurt when i bite back at you and accuse me of holding a creepy grudge, when in fact that's your MO. Non fucking stop, nitpicking, up your own arse sneering, nastily and purposely misrepresenting what i post to have a dig, gather yourself a few pointless likes and convince yourself of popularity.

I am not wrong. It uses the same function (word play/dead pan) as the joke I referred to, that's what i meant. I don't find that kind of humour funny. It's the equivalent to 1970's canned laughter stuff to me. There was no outrage, I did understand, it's not sophisticated and I don't give a rat's arse what you think.

You probably feel all smug now that you've finally annoyed me enough to actually respond to you again. Enjoy.

Now off you fuck.

 

[Slo-mo]

Wow, Daily Mail have gone front page again with this. This time focusing on the shredded documents. Of course the Daily Mail have been critical of the government before, but it really looks like they are putting the boot in.

 

[Athos]

FFs you are a relentless, sneering twit. You know I want no engagement at all with you by you keep at it. You then get all hurt when i bite back at you and accuse me of holding a creepy grudge, when in fact that's your MO. None fucking stop, nitpicking, up your own arse sneering, nastily and purposely misrepresenting what i post to have a dig, gather yourself a few pointless likes and convince yourself of popularity.

I am not wrong. It uses the same function (word play/dead pan) as the joke I referred to, that's what i meant. I don't find that kind of humour funny. It's the equivalent to 1970's canned laughter stuff to me. There was no outrage, I did understand, it's not sophisticated and I don't give a rat's arse what you think.

You probably feel all smug now that you've finally annoyed me enough to actually respond to you again. Enjoy.

Now off you fuck.

Lol. If it helps you to believe that because your ego's so fragile that you can't concede that you wrongly thought it was a reference to the tequila joke, when it was actually a reference to something else, then be my guest. I pity you.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Only because the media got hold of the story. If the media fuss hadn't happened, do you think the government would have done diddly squat?

No, I don't, which is utterly disgraceful.

 

[teuchter]

Yes. I'd also like to see it dissolve itself and dismantle capitalism. It isn't going to do either, though.

You probably know, I'm an anarchist communist, and my analysis of what parliaments do is that they are not there to serve the interests of the people, but to serve the interests of the capitalist classes. The legislation they pass has what is known as "unintended consequences" in large degree because of that dynamic. (Aside from the other more human factors, like "fucking up"). To separate out this one variable in what a parliament may do (vary the degree of control over immigration from 0-100 and any point in between) from the economic conditions in which that parliament is operating is actually, once the context has been pointed out, disingenuous.

It's impossible to discuss or think about just about anything without separating variables out, to some extent artificially. Asking someone's opinion on immigration policy does not mean that I ignore the context in which that policy operates. It's not disingenuous. I don't see the issue with you answering the question in the context of your analysis of what parliaments do. That's how anyone thoughtful would answer the question.

It's also the reality of how policy decisions tend to be made. Governments try to adjust variables. Parliament may vote on what amounts to a decision about how a certain variable is adjusted. Legislation tries to define variables. Of course, in an ideal world, all those decisions are made whilst considering the context of the decision as fully as possible, rather than seeing those adjustments as self-contained things.

So, it's not disingenuous to ask a question about degree of control of immigration. It's a question that is continually being asked and acted on. The reality of the way things work is that quotas are set and changed. I get it that you say that the problem can only be solved properly by much more wholesale changes - in your case the overthrow of the state and a fundamentally different way of organising society. Fine. The argument about whether that's plausibly ever going to happen is another one - but even if we agree that that's what we're going to work towards, the question about what to do about immigration policy in the meantime remains. That was my original question to those who say that the problem must be solved by more fundamental changes than trying to adjust quotas - what do we do in the real-world meantime? I was originally responding to the suggestion that it somehow isn't a legitimate question, or that maybe even to ask the question is somehow racist.

I think you've now said that yes, in the context of the current system, and assuming that for now we have to continue with our parliament that serves the interests of the capitalist classes, that assuming all that, you'd like all quotas to be removed and for us to have a completely open immigration policy. You've also said you don't think it'll ever do that. I agree, I don't think it'll ever do that. Maybe we'd each give different reasons for why we don't think it'll ever do that, but you having stated that at least in the abstract you'd like to see parliament open all borders, can I therefore assume that your general preference is for more open rather than less open borders? And if we can establish that, is there any chance that we can talk about what the consequences would be, of somewhat more open borders, whilst still assuming that we're discussing the time period when our sub-optimal parliament system is in operation. Whatever the duration of that time period is, before the revolution comes to pass.

Lots of discussions on here effectively just come to a dead end, because people dodge talking about real world consequences of theoretical preferences, by saying that it's not worth talking about, because it's the "wrong question". It's the wrong question because it assumes a world where much more radical changes can't immediately come about so as to solve the problem by other more satisfactory means. But as far as I'm concerned that's the world we live in.

The way I see it, it's easy to state a preference for open borders.

It's easy (and patronising) to dismiss questions about consequences of such a policy as naive or disingenuous or simply "the wrong question" based on the assumption the questioner simply hasn't considered or thought about more radical changes.

It's very difficult to make and defend suggestions for what can plausibly be done through the mechanisms we currently have available to us to try and find a less bad solution than we currently have.

Yes, people on an individual basis can do things like making a fuss if they see someone on a plane being deported. And maybe if enough people do that there will be bad press and government will be slightly less inclined to push for deportation in certain cases. In the end that's still just adjusting a variable. A bit more or a bit less deportation.

 

[agricola]

Only because the media got hold of the story. If the media fuss hadn't happened, do you think the government would have done diddly squat?

Perhaps "get hold" is a bit much to describe what went on. "Be given the story with a snappy two-word summary for headline purposes" would be better, at least for those of them who aren't Amelia Gentleman.

 

[agricola]

Also its interesting to see that the PM probably told a fib once (over Albert Thompson's medical costs, which was news to him) and may have told a second one (about the decision to destroy the Windrush landing cards taking place under Labour rather than when she was HS, which contradicts a Border Force statement put out last night and in the post-PMQs media briefing today) at PMQs.

Clearly this has them rattled.

 

[danny la rouge]

what do we do in the real-world meantime?

Thank you for your long and detailed answer.

But the answer to what I assume is your core question, what do we do in the real-world in the meantime, is: working class solidarity. E.g. If your neighbour is being deported, block the doorway with numbers.

Or, look at the work of the Wobblies 100 years ago. Where there was suspicion of immigrant labour undercutting or scabbing, they'd lay on social receptions for immigrants, find beds for them with families, help them with bureaucracy, that sort of thing. That way the immigrants would feel welcome, feel a connection with "local" labour, and therefore would be less likely to scab. In return "local" labour would learn the immigrants are people with whom they have more in common than not, that they're decent people who wouldn't scab, and so on. That together we can unite against the bosses.

 

[killer b]

The two deceptions (I guess they were probably carefully worded so they can't be considered bare-faced lies, but their effect was the same) were deployed purely to get a 'win' at PMQs, hence the clearly pre-prepared 'clarification' delivered immediately after.

The press seem to have eaten it, which is all the tories are interested in.

 

[Sprocket.]

The two deceptions (I guess they were probably carefully worded so they can't be considered bare-faced lies, but their effect was the same) were deployed purely to get a 'win' at PMQs, hence the clearly pre-prepared 'clarification' delivered immediately after.

The press seem to have eaten it, which is all the tories are interested in.

Typical Tory trick, trying to make a political gain while families are distraught and fearful of a future none of them would have anticipated.
PMQs should be disposed of.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I was forced on to a charter flight in the middle of the night, denied all appeal rights, and sent to a country I did not know.’

I was 27 when I was deported from the UK to Jamaica, so I am not a Windrush migrant – but my great grandparents were. They moved to the UK in the early 1950s. Over time, they invited their children over, and most of my family have always lived in England.

‘Act Jamaican,’ they said when they deported me. But I’m British | Michelle Blake

 

[Treacle Toes]

Also its interesting to see that the PM probably told a fib once (over Albert Thompson's medical costs, which was news to him) and may have told a second one (about the decision to destroy the Windrush landing cards taking place under Labour rather than when she was HS, which contradicts a Border Force statement put out last night and in the post-PMQs media briefing today) at PMQs.

Clearly this has them rattled.

 

[Treacle Toes]

 

[teuchter]

Thank you for your long and detailed answer.

But the answer to what I assume is your core question, what do we do in the real-world in the meantime, is: working class solidarity. E.g. If your neighbour is being deported, block the doorway with numbers.

Or, look at the work of the Wobblies 100 years ago. Where there was suspicion of immigrant labour undercutting or scabbing, they'd lay on social receptions for immigrants, find beds for them with families, help them with bureaucracy, that sort of thing. That way the immigrants would feel welcome, feel a connection with "local" labour, and therefore would be less likely to scab. In return "local" labour would learn the immigrants are people with whom they have more in common than not, that they're decent people who wouldn't scab, and so on. That together we can unite against the bosses.

My question was really what we do about borders in the meantime - not how we should immigrants once they are here.

Or maybe your proposal is that borders are made significantly more open, and that potential difficulties arising from a large inflow of immigrants can be dealt with by adopting the kind of approaches you describe above. It doesn't sound realistic to me, but fair enough.

 

[danny la rouge]

My question was really what we do about borders in the meantime - not how we should immigrants once they are here.

Or maybe your proposal is that borders are made significantly more open, and that potential difficulties arising from a large inflow of immigrants can be dealt with by adopting the kind of approaches you describe above. It doesn't sound realistic to me, but fair enough.

No. My proposal is that governments stop being cunts. Given the unrealistic nature of that project my back up plan is working class solidarity.

 

[teuchter]

No. My proposal is that governments stop being cunts. Given the unrealistic nature of that project my back up plan is working class solidarity.

So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open.

I could do a confused smiley but I think basically you don't want to engage in a conversation about open borders and the real world consequences under our current setup. That's fair enough, you shouldn't be obliged to, but here we are with another u75 dead end discussion.

 

[Thimble Queen]

‘Act Jamaican,’ they said when they deported me. But I’m British | Michelle Blake

That's really fucking sad

 

[danny la rouge]

So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open.

I could do a confused smiley but I think basically you don't want to engage in a conversation about open borders and the real world consequences under our current setup. That's fair enough, you shouldn't be obliged to, but here we are with another u75 dead end discussion.

I don't think there's a parliamentary road to socialism. I think parliaments doing things should be one of the things that is stopped. For that reason, I tend not to vote. I don't support parties. And I focus my own political efforts on non parliamentary activities. My definition of "real world" politics is practical action here and now in our own communities.

No idea where you get this from: "So you would like to see parliament remove all border restrictions, but you wouldn't propose that borders are made significantly more open" because it isn't what I said.

 

[danny la rouge]

Anyway, children of Windrush immigrants are people who look to me just like what everyone else would call a British Citizen. Most likely they thought that themselves. So this is actually about when is a citizen not a citizen.

 

[agricola]

Anyway, children of Windrush immigrants are people who look to me just like what everyone else would call a British Citizen. Most likely they thought that themselves. So this is actually about when is a citizen not a citizen.

When does a citizen stop being a citizen, more like.

 

[danny la rouge]

When does a citizen stop being a citizen, more like.

Indeed.

 

[agricola]

If anyone is bored, the Hansard record of the debates around the Immigration Act 2014 makes humorous reading; almost all of the problems that the Windrush scandal have exposed were raised at the time, often by what is now the Labour front bench:

Ms Abbott I accept the Home Secretary’s wish to clean up the system and discourage people from “playing” it—I deal with thousands of immigration cases every month—but has she given no thought to the effect that her measures that are designed to crack down on illegal immigrants could have on people who are British nationals, but appear as if they might be immigrants?

Mrs May: We have given a great deal of thought to the way in which our measures will operate. The changes that we propose will strengthen our ability to deal with those who are here illegally. We are, for example, strengthening our ability to enforce penalties for those who employ illegal workers. The system enabling employers to determine whether the workers whom they employ are here legally or not is in place, is well known and is running properly, and the same will apply in the other areas that we are discussing.

The Bill will also help to discharge the Government’s commitment to introduce exit checks on people leaving the UK in order to tackle overstaying and prevent people from fleeing British justice.

Let me now go into a little more detail, although not too much, because I know that others wish to speak. The Bill substantially reforms the removals system, and ensures that illegal migrants who have no right to be in the UK can be returned to their own countries more quickly. We inherited a complex system involving multiple stages before an individual can be removed, allowing numerous challenges to be issued during the process. The Bill will ensure that we adopt a system whereby only one decision is made. Individuals will be informed of that decision, and if the decision is that they can no longer stay in the UK, immigration enforcement officials will be allowed to remove them if they do not leave of their own accord. The Bill also reforms the system whereby illegal migrants held in detention centres are allowed to apply for bail, and it gives immigration officers stronger powers so that they can establish the identity of illegal immigrants by checking fingerprints and searching for passports.

The current appeals system is also very complex. There are 17 different immigration decisions that attract rights of appeal, but the Bill will cut that number to four, which I think will prevent abuse of the appeal process. It will also ensure that appeals address only fundamental rights. It will make it easier to deport foreign criminals by requiring individuals to appeal from abroad after deportation, unless they face the prospect of serious harm.

 

[teuchter]

Anyway, children of Windrush immigrants are people who look to me just like what everyone else would call a British Citizen. Most likely they thought that themselves. So this is actually about when is a citizen not a citizen.

To be clear - on this issue, I think the way these children of Windrush immigrants have been treated is indefensible. Anyone who comes to this country as a child and who grows up here should be considered a citizen, regardless of their parents' status.

 

[patman post]

No. My proposal is that governments stop being cunts. Given the unrealistic nature of that project my back up plan is working class solidarity.

Shame all the fuss about mismanagement of the Windrush Childrens’ Britishness came about during a significant anniversary of Enoch’s Rivers of Blood speech — a time when the working class in the form of builders, dockers, Smithfield workers, etc, marched in support of Powell. Of course, these working class dummies were all manipulated by Right Wing agitators...

 

[danny la rouge]

Shame all the fuss about mismanagement of the Windrush Childrens’ Britishness came about during a significant anniversary of Enoch’s Rivers of Blood speech — a time when the working class in the form of builders, dockers, Smithfield workers, etc, marched in support of Powell. Of course, these working class dummies were all manipulated by Right Wing agitators...

I don't know you, but you seem "entertaining".

If you think I'm saying the working class is a monothought bloc of "political correctness", then you've not read my posts. Or you've added other stuff in that isn't there. I quite clearly explained the point that the practice of solidarity is transformative.

As for "some working class people are racist". Indeed. And what's your point? But if you're claiming that the working class as a whole is or was racist, then you're talking nonsense. Some is not all.

 

[Gramsci]

The insaneness of unmitigated free movement between European countries which instigated Brexit etc shouldn’t have been somehow muddled with the status of those who plugged labour shortages decades ago and have been here for years. That the govt didn’t have the foresight to see this coming from their policies further illustrates their ineptness to govern.

Catching up on this thread and can't let this pass.

I live in Brixton. One of my Afro Carribbean friends said the way people were complaining about Poles etc was the same complaints as directed at his father's generation when they came here postwar.

As my Afro Carribbean friend said immigration has been an issue in this country for years. The target group changes over time.

So in agreement with my Afro Carribbean friend you are wrong.

There are parallels. People from Commonwealth country had free movement until 71. The change like a lot of what instigated Brexit was down to anti immigration sentiment.

I was chatting to my partner this evening, she is one of those Europeans who came here due to "insane" free movement, about this issue. Hardly makes her feel confident about her status here.

This country has a long history of giving immigrants a hard time. Nothing to be proud of.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Catching up on this thread and can't let this pass.

I live in Brixton. One of my Afro Carribbean friends said the way people were complaining about Poles etc was the same complaints as directed at his father's generation when they came here postwar.

As my Afro Carribbean friend said immigration has been an issue in this country for years. The target group changes over time.

So in agreement with my Afro Carribbean friend you are wrong.

There are parallels. People from Commonwealth country had free movement until 71. The change like a lot of what instigated Brexit was down to anti immigration sentiment.

I was chatting to my partner this evening, she is one of those Europeans who came here due to "insane" free movement, about this issue. Hardly makes her feel confident about her status here.

This country has a long history of giving immigrants a hard time. Nothing to be proud of.

Not sure how that counters what I was saying but cheers for the effort.

 

[GarveyLives]

Mother of Windrush citizen blames passport battle for son's death as Home Office deals with 113 cases

​

 

[Gramsci]

It's impossible to discuss or think about just about anything without separating variables out, to some extent artificially. Asking someone's opinion on immigration policy does not mean that I ignore the context in which that policy operates. It's not disingenuous. I don't see the issue with you answering the question in the context of your analysis of what parliaments do. That's how anyone thoughtful would answer the question.

It's also the reality of how policy decisions tend to be made. Governments try to adjust variables. Parliament may vote on what amounts to a decision about how a certain variable is adjusted. Legislation tries to define variables. Of course, in an ideal world, all those decisions are made whilst considering the context of the decision as fully as possible, rather than seeing those adjustments as self-contained things.

So, it's not disingenuous to ask a question about degree of control of immigration. It's a question that is continually being asked and acted on. The reality of the way things work is that quotas are set and changed. I get it that you say that the problem can only be solved properly by much more wholesale changes - in your case the overthrow of the state and a fundamentally different way of organising society. Fine. The argument about whether that's plausibly ever going to happen is another one - but even if we agree that that's what we're going to work towards, the question about what to do about immigration policy in the meantime remains. That was my original question to those who say that the problem must be solved by more fundamental changes than trying to adjust quotas - what do we do in the real-world meantime? I was originally responding to the suggestion that it somehow isn't a legitimate question, or that maybe even to ask the question is somehow racist.

I think you've now said that yes, in the context of the current system, and assuming that for now we have to continue with our parliament that serves the interests of the capitalist classes, that assuming all that, you'd like all quotas to be removed and for us to have a completely open immigration policy. You've also said you don't think it'll ever do that. I agree, I don't think it'll ever do that. Maybe we'd each give different reasons for why we don't think it'll ever do that, but you having stated that at least in the abstract you'd like to see parliament open all borders, can I therefore assume that your general preference is for more open rather than less open borders? And if we can establish that, is there any chance that we can talk about what the consequences would be, of somewhat more open borders, whilst still assuming that we're discussing the time period when our sub-optimal parliament system is in operation. Whatever the duration of that time period is, before the revolution comes to pass.

Lots of discussions on here effectively just come to a dead end, because people dodge talking about real world consequences of theoretical preferences, by saying that it's not worth talking about, because it's the "wrong question". It's the wrong question because it assumes a world where much more radical changes can't immediately come about so as to solve the problem by other more satisfactory means. But as far as I'm concerned that's the world we live in.

The way I see it, it's easy to state a preference for open borders.

It's easy (and patronising) to dismiss questions about consequences of such a policy as naive or disingenuous or simply "the wrong question" based on the assumption the questioner simply hasn't considered or thought about more radical changes.

It's very difficult to make and defend suggestions for what can plausibly be done through the mechanisms we currently have available to us to try and find a less bad solution than we currently have.

Yes, people on an individual basis can do things like making a fuss if they see someone on a plane being deported. And maybe if enough people do that there will be bad press and government will be slightly less inclined to push for deportation in certain cases. In the end that's still just adjusting a variable. A bit more or a bit less deportation.

I'm reading this and wonder do we both live in Brixton area?

Before you ask I'm for open borders. I don't think it would lead to bad consequences for this country. It didn't in Brixton. Most of Afro Carribbean community here were descended from those who came during the "uncontrolled" pre 1971 years.

This country really never has had mass migration to deal with. Take the Syrian conflict. Countries like Lebanon and Turkey have taken in a large number of refugees suddenly. Compared to what those countries have dealt with the immigration debate here is trivial in reality.

Imo a lot of government policy on immigration/ asylum/ right to stay for partners isn't driven by actual concrete consequences. It's driven by pandering to anti immigrant / racist views

And yes I am emotional about this issue. As I live in Brixton this is a hot topic. And people I know do relate it to wider issues around his this country treats immigrants / those descended from them.

 

[Gramsci]

Mother of Windrush citizen blames passport battle for son's death as Home Office deals with 113 cases

​

Yes Garvey I'm aware of this.

But what is your opinion? Posting up links is ok once in a while but you aren't engaging with the thread.