Reply to: Amber Rudd Is a liar -

[darmstadt]

Now THAT is an ambitious statement.

Amber Rudd gets sacked, inbred returns, is there a link?

[shaunbhoy]

I think

Now THAT is an ambitious statement.

[darmstadt]

I don't know about that number, but as with anything you can't count precisely, there are accepted ways of performing studies.

What, like there are 20255 current members of CUK of which 20000 are sockies, 6759 are Russian troll factory workers and somewhere in there is an intelligent poster...

There may well be accepted ways of performing studies but when it comes down Britain and immigration, you need to take everything with a pinch of salt nowadays

[northernladyuk]

How do we know that there are 300000 illegal immigrants if they are here illegally? Is there some kind of clandestine office where they register?

I don't know about that number, but as with anything you can't count precisely, there are accepted ways of performing studies.

[NigelJK]

That's a conservative estimate.

[darmstadt]

Given that the 260 odd 'claimants' have produced a media campaign that rivals a royal wedding you'd think that sorting out the other 300000 that are here illegally might produce a similar outrage.

How do we know that there are 300000 illegal immigrants if they are here illegally? Is there some kind of clandestine office where they register?

[SueEllen]

Given that the 260 odd 'claimants' have produced a media campaign that rivals a royal wedding you'd think that sorting out the other 300000 that are here illegally might produce a similar outrage.

There are more than 260 claimants as it includes their descendants. If your mother, father or grandfather has/had British citizenship you are entitled to it.

There are people who have served in the armed forces for years so have been put at the risk of being cannon fodder for our politicians who when they resign/leave are being denied British citizenship. (The lucky ones who have married an EU citizen have no problems staying.)

The whole point of Mrs May's policy is to deny people a right to British citizenship regardless of whether they are a British citizen by descend, or deserve it some other way.

[original PM]

Given that the 260 odd 'claimants' have produced a media campaign that rivals a royal wedding you'd think that sorting out the other 300000 that are here illegally might produce a similar outrage.

Ah yeah we best not do it then

[NigelJK]

Me too. I feel sullied now.

Given that the 260 odd 'claimants' have produced a media campaign that rivals a royal wedding you'd think that sorting out the other 300000 that are here illegally might produce a similar outrage.

[northernladyuk]

Can I just say how much I'm enjoying this whole business.

Me too. I feel sullied now.

[northernladyuk]

The problem being Theresa May's hostile environment policy and her government's desire to deport people.

Hush now. Stop mentioning the pesky facts that oPM pointed us towards.

[sal]

Which is kind of inline with the what a lot of citizens of this country asked for?

A better immigration policy which ensures we get the right kind of people coming into the country?

Limited barriers to deporting people who are here illegally?

Not so much 'hostile' as 'common sense'.

The problem is that it was/is not a better immigration policy and it's everything else but common sense.

Demanding 4 pieces of evidence for every year spanning decades from every individual, when there should be centrally available records like tax returns and NI for the majority of them proving they were resident in the UK is not common sense.

Threatening ppl with forced deportation because in the past 40 years they lived in the UK for 39 with 1 year break in the middle for whatever reason is not common sense, even if they resided illegally for these 39 years.

Retroactively applying rules to change someones immigration status from legal to illegal, while doing next to nothing to limit the new arrivals is not common sense.

Then let me ask you, what do you consider the "right kind of people" that need to be the only ones permitted in the UK?

[Jog On]

You know if someone wrote all this as a script for a political satire TV series before 2010, no TV production company would make this as they would say it was too far fetch.

I can just see the Malcolm Tuckers exploding all over the place

[SueEllen]

Can I just say how much I'm enjoying this whole business.

You know if someone wrote all this as a script for a political satire TV series before 2010, no TV production company would make this as they would say it was too far fetch.

[SueEllen]

I think the point is everyone is running around trying to blame everyone else.

The reality is it seems

1) The deletion/destruction of these papers was initially taken to comply with the DPA.

Absolute bollocks - some of these people are dead and died before 2010 so there is no Data Protection issues. Their descendants may need the cards to prove that their father, mother or grandfather entered the UK and were settled before 1973. The elderly people who were children and entered then won't have a Data Protection issue with the British government keeping a record of them.

Added to that the National Archives has a copy of some of the passenger lists from 1960 and before, so if it was a Data Protection issue why are the National Archives allowed to keep a copy of such lists? Another issue is The Home Office destroyed a bit of British history which some museums/organisations would have been happy to archive.

2) These papers would have had very little impact - although not non zero.

If you are someone whose relation landed then or came as young child, and haven't got a British passport then the impact thanks to the passing of the 2014 Immigration Act is large.

3) Due to the fact it is going to affect some people who have a legitimate right to stay in the UK everyone is running around trying to blame everyone else.

Why not put the effort into solving the problem rather than pointing the finger?

Luckily we have another Pakistani bus driver's son to sort out the mess then