Why our immigration system needs an overhaul

11:04 am - July 30th 2010

by Guest    

      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Jessica Sims and Julie Gibbs

Tim Finch from ippr is right to call for the immigration system to be changed, highlighting the inequalities and injustices that scar the system.

However, we at Runnymede believe a credible immigration system must take seriously Britain’s commitment to human rights and justice, rather than focusing primarily on returning people who do not fit into narrowly defined categories.

In thinking about reforming our current system, it is more useful to emphasize return as it actually occurs in practice rather than how it is outlined in policy.

A fair and just immigration system is not created through quick removals, but rather through ensuring due process which takes into account people’s actual circumstances.

Two points, with regards to asylum seekers:

First, a system of return cannot be defended as credible when it does not offer adequate time for appeal or protection from human rights abuses.

The recent ruling found that fast-track removals are unlawful because those receiving a removal order must have the right to challenge it. Even when there has been time to appeal a refusal of leave to remain in the UK or a deportation order, evidence suggests that accessing a good quality asylum solicitor is becoming increasingly difficult for those facing removal.

If we agree that access to good quality legal advice is key to achieving justice, then it follows that removal and return must occur only after a fair and justified outcome. The Home Office decision making process leading to return has been found to be lacking in both cases.

Arguing that the immigration battles over the last decade have been good for the immigration lawyers at a time when many in the legal aid sector who help the most vulnerable clients are going out of business due to funding reforms is misguided .

Second, a credible and fair immigration system must be underpinned by well trained staff working in an environment committed to non-discrimination. The investigation into Louise Perrett’s allegations about her experiences working for the UK Border Agency has recently been released.

Perrett alleged that there was a culture of bad behaviour and discrimination in the Cardiff asylum team. This had included the use of a ‘grant monkey’ badge of shame given to staff approving asylum applications. While the investigation did not return evidence to corroborate Perrett’s 20 allegations, in response the UK Border Agency will increase the decisions being made in Cardiff assessed against the UNHCR quality assurance matrix from 20% to 50% and provide further training interventions for staff.

As Finch points out, the practice of return is controversial and contentious. However, it is important to not overlook the reality of policies of return (at least for asylum seekers): that the Home Office is fallible and that it is precisely the role of civil society to question when practices breach respect, fairness and justice.

A better immigration system will only be achieved through recognizing these flaws.

Jessica Mai Sims is Research and Policy Analyst, and Julie Gibbs is Senior Research and Information Officer at the Runnymede Trust

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  

About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by

Story Filed Under: Blog ,Immigration ,Reform

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Reader comments

Good piece. Finch’s bile was a disgrace to LibCon, and to IPPR, an otherwise progressive place.

“Arguing that the immigration battles over the last decade have been good for the immigration lawyers at a time when many in the legal aid sector who help the most vulnerable clients are going out of business due to funding reforms is misguided”

Thank you!

In the news today from the Press Association:

“The UK will be the biggest country in Western Europe by 2050, overtaking both France and Germany, figures showed.

“The UK’s population will increase to 77 million in just 40 years’ time from 62.2 million today, a rise of almost 24%, the US-based Population Reference Bureau projected on Friday.

“The surge would make it bigger than both France and Germany, where populations are predicted to rise to 70 million and 71.5 million respectively.

“The population of Western Europe as a whole will remain fairly constant – 190 million in 2050 compared with 189 million today – while figures for the whole of Europe suggest the population will drop from 739 million to 720 million.”

So what, Bob?

“So what, Bob?”

If we’re to have “evidence-based policy”, it’s as well to look at the evidence.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Britain’s population was half that of France. By the end of that century, Britain’s population had almost trebled whereas the French were starting to worry about their relative lack of population growth – and remember that the land area of France was more than twice that of Britain.

If we want to understand where we are, we need to reflect on how we got here.

6. Gaf the Horse

Of course what the population figures there don’t show is the age demographics of these projections. With an increasingly ageing population in Europe unless we somehow increase the younger end of the population we’ll end up with a completely unsustainable system without enough people in the prime of their earning lives to support all the oldies, (and I’ll be 82 in 2050, should I live that long, so I have a vested interest here :-)). The BBC (I think) had some interesting graphs a short while ago which showed the population / age breakdown based on various levels of immigration. 0% led to a graph overwhelmingly biased towards the old, with a more sustainable demographic coming from increased immigration.
Based on that I’d rather be in the UK than France or Germany in 2050.

1. How much credence can be given to population projections. I’m all for evidence, and the evidence based on past projections is that they are notoriously unreliable, and should probably be taken with more salt than the Dead Sea.
2. Presuming they are accurate, why is a larger population A Bad Thing in and of itself?
3. Presuming it is A Bad Thing, what is driving population growth? Immigration, fertility rate, death rate? Is it moral for the state to intervene in any of these areas?
4. Presuming immigration is the primary cause, and it is moral to restrict it, what practical knock-on consequences of losing young, hard-working adults in a country with a fragile economy and an ageing population?

Going from ‘population projected to grow’ to ‘immigration must be restricted’ is one mighty big leap. I have doubts about every presumption I made above. We do indeed need evidence, but we need all the facts, not just one speculative estimate.

I know, there seems to be this huge thing among the anti-immigrant scaremongers that 70M or 77M or whatever is de facto a bad thing.

As I said on that other thread, species goes where the good hunting’s at. If we’ve got demand for our space, it means the hunting’s good. It’s when we don’t have the immigrants come banging at our door looking for work that we need to start worrying. Shit, it’ll probably happen soon enough under Osborne, don’t worry.

“why is a larger population A Bad Thing in and of itself?”

It depends on the timescale over which population growth occurs and where and how the growing population settles.

England’s population density is already among the highest in the world and there are debated issues of social cohesion and of mounting pressures on public services when these are being cut to pay down the annual budget deficit of c. £153bn. According to this Newsnight report, 40% of Londoners were born abroad:

According to the 2001 census, nearly half of all ethnic minorities living in Britain, live in London.

Try focusing on the evidence of Professor Robert Rowthorn to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economics Affairs, Session 2007-8:

Rowthorn is not your stereotypical “right-winger” – as the Wiki entry for him says, “Many of his publications have a Marxist slant”:

From the opening post:

If we agree that access to good quality legal advice is key to achieving justice, then it follows that removal and return must occur only after a fair and justified outcome.

So European countries should all adopt this practice and give everyone of these people ”good quality legal advice.”

Key facts: Africa to Europe migration.

Fair enough. How much does it cost on average, and how does it work?
Are people with weak stories of persecution weeded out pretty fast when it becomes probable that they are in the majority who are ”just” seeing a better life?
Or is every last fisherman from Senegal who despaired at trying to make a living doing that and set out for the bright lights of Europe to make his fortune, to be also put into a long term legal process with appeals and support from the tax-payer?

I don’t have a strong opinion either way, I’m just curious.
Also, should people who have been sent for deportation be allowed to stop being put on a plane if they struggle and scream? Again, just a question.

There was a very high profile case here in Ireland in the last couple of years by a Nigerian woman called Pamela Enitan Izevbekhai who claimed she feared her daughters would undergo FGM in Nigeria. Here is a sympathetic profile of her case.

Maybe because Ireland is a small country, her case has come up from time to time, like here for example when it was found that a death certificate for one of her daughters she had supplied was a fake.

She even lost her appeal against deportation in the Supreme Court recently, but vowed to fight on and is to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights.

She’s certainly getting the benifits of a lengthy appeal process.
Is this the way it should be for everyone?

Britain needs a million Somalis, Ethiopians and Eritreans NOW!

Settle them in marginal constituencies and sign them up as Labour Party members.

There, that’ll do the trick!


That’s mostly beause the UK had a fast growing base of industrial workers/proletariat cos of the industrial revolution whereas even in 1860ish France was still a hugely agricultural/peasantry-based society (read Dickens (or Engels!) and then Zola’s “La Terre” and compare).

It’s also, imo, why China adopted its “one-child” policy – the more advanced a society gets the quicker its population grows (by necessity (more workers needed) and by improved life-chances).

Are people with weak stories of persecution weeded out pretty fast when it becomes probable that they are in the majority who are ”just” seeing a better life?
Or is every last fisherman from Senegal who despaired at trying to make a living doing that and set out for the bright lights of Europe to make his fortune, to be also put into a long term legal process with appeals and support from the tax-payer?

Why is moving to the bright lights of the city a sign of moral turpitude these days?That’s what I don’t get. Let them bloody well try legally, or we’ll end up only with those who choose to try by illegal means.

Why is moving to the bright lights of the city a sign of moral turpitude these days?

It’s not. I’m just talking about the rules, and do we have them on immigration or not?
If you think not, then fair enough, but you have to accept that is a minority view in Britain.

Actually, I think you’re being overly ideological McDuff. It’s fine to have that position, but coming on all incredulous that your opinion is not shared by everyone closes down the area of debate that might be had.

I understand that Liberal Conspiracy, as led by Sunny, is a very ideological place, where winning is more important than how it is achieved – but I presume some people come to this site for interesting discussion, not to have ideology projected at them.

Britain already does have an immigration programme and process. Hundreds of thousands of people come to the country every year. It has probably got lots of flaws, but it would be bound to have.

Granting visas in a country like Nigeria is always going to be a nightmare of a job when so many fraudalent claims are made.

Most Nigerian visa applicants are denied visa to the United Kingdom because they present fake documents, the head of the British High Commission’s Visa Section Mr. Jason Ivory said in Abuja yesterday.

According to him, over 182,000 Nigerians apply for a UK visa every year and only 50 percent of them have genuine documents to support their applications.


If you think all they should need is a one way ticket to London, that’s all well and good.
I’d really like to know how this ‘open borders’ idea would actually work when we’re talking those kinds of numbers from just one country.

15. the a&e charge nurse

[14] “I’d really like to know how this ‘open borders’ idea would actually work”.

So would I, because I think ‘open borders’ is the ideological end point for those who argue that any citizen who manages to find their way to Britain should be entitled to the same services as those born here, be it various legal costs, rent, or presumably even a new liver?

Such a posture is not without problems, as we found to our cost when this wretched man found his way here;

If we leave the clash of cultures to one side for the moment, I think for most ordinary folk there is the straightforward matter of competition for resources, be it the last place in the local school, the prospect of a job, or even a seat on the bus, competition that is only likely to intensify in the current climate of austerity.

Much of the world lives in dire poverty, or at best enjoys only a fairly modest standard of living, so it is perfectly understandable that some families will gravitate toward more affluent parts of the world (if they can) – looking at the overall balance sheet we can see that there are bound to be winners and losers in either camps (immigrants and residents) – this reality, I think is the basis of people’s concerns about recent immigration trends, that and the fact Britain is close to becoming one of the modest densely countries in Western Europe;

Wait, I’m being over ideological? When you’re “just talking about the rules”? What rules? They change day to day, Home Secretary to Home Secretary. And for the most part they are based on this unspeak notion that a “failed asylum seeker” is some kind of bad person, rather than just someone trying to game an unfair, arbitrary and capricious system just like everyone else out there. I’m not talking ideology at fucking all: I’m talking about the system that exists as it stands, and how we’ve let ideology create some kind of monstrous thing that fails to work in terrible ways.

You’d like to know how “open borders” would work? Tell me something: how is the system we’ve got supposed to work? Are you pointing to the grotesque, failed clusterfuck that we’ve got going on at the moment and calling it functional, let alone a success?

We allow capital much more freedom of movement than labour, for a start. I mean, let’s just look at how that works in practice, hm? Global multinational companies move their manufacturing bases across the world to places where their wage costs are slashed by two thirds, in many cases removing employment wholesale and in massively depressing bulk. Having created this brave new world, our politicians then try to make the UK “competitive” by promising to lower taxes on certain kinds of capital if it will bless us with its presence, which we pay for by slashing public services. But then the spectre of immigration shows up, and then, only then, do we suddenly care about the white working class and their concerns. “Immigration costs jobs!” as if competing with someone who’s new and non-union in a country with a minimum wage was just as easy as competing with a whole factory of new guys in a country that you don’t get to go to and try to get a job at all.

I mean, excuse me for thinking that “ideology” might have anything to do with how that particular mess got constructed.

That’s not to mention how, now we’ve decided to “crack down” on natural migratory flows, we haven’t got the first clue how to do it. I mean, it’s all very well saying “if we had open borders bad men might find their way here”, which as a statement of fact is true, if slightly ignorant of the fact that we also grow bad people here, and that the ratio of bad people to good people is roughly constant the world over. Also, using an example of a guy who came over here under the current system when saying that doing it differently might let people like that come over here is, um, I mean, it doesn’t actually have the rhetorical heft you might think it does. Because if your argument is that the current system is supposed to stop people who are bad existing in our country, can I point out for the record that it demonstrably failed at that? Not least because a lot of odious motherfuckers start out with British passports in the first place.

Then there’s the whole “illegal immigrant” racket. It’s not like this process is old news: demand for something exists, politicians put restrictions on product, demand still exists, gap between supply and demand filled by unscrupulous individuals with non-standard moral codes, criminals make out like, literally, bandits. Overall point being, just because you don’t give someone a visa doesn’t mean they don’t get here anyway. Some don’t, I’ll grant you. But what you trade off with those who do get here is that they’re outside the legal system entirely, funding those who might well not quite be the civic-minded elder statesmen we’d like them to be on the way over here. Illegal immigration is bad for the immigrants and bad for us, but like illegal drugs, it’s not as if it stops just because we made some law against it. Far be it from me to be all “ideological” about the fact that our government is not, in fact, an omnipotent league of super heros, but there is in fact some limit to the extent that laws can impact reality.

Then, when we do come to enforce these rules, which are in any event mostly arbitrary and capricious, as I’ve said, we do so in a manner which makes us into worse people. We threaten to take babies away from their mothers. We lock people up for years. We exact increasingly punitive measures against the soft targets while being mostly as impotent against trafficking as we are against drug smuggling. We deny genuine claims for political asylum, including some where we had a hand in creating the situations the people are fleeing, in order to keep the numbers down. We use violence to deport people and then don’t care when they get raped or shot when they get off the plane. We become a nation of bastards. And, even when we do that, the Daily Express is still racist. It’s almost like you can’t appease the bastards no matter how hard you try, isn’t it? Almost like there’s some sort of “ideology” behind it?

So that’s what we’ve got. Is that a functional system? Is it a sane system? Is it something that we should be proud of and happy with? Or is it something built entirely out of the ideological detritus of a committee of schizophrenic numbskulls; a perilous, heath robinson contraption of ill-thought-out ideas and leaky patches hastily slapped over the consequences of those ideas, that sucks up resources to not do what it’s claimed to do and create all manner of interesting problems as a side effect of that failure?

I’m apparently too ideological because I’m saying that we plainly are too incompetent to find our own backsides with both hands and an atlas over this issue? That maybe we ought to punch our weight on this, and rather than discuss what kind of magical policies we’d wish to put in place should the Home Secretary be a superintelligent being made of pure energy, we should think about what kind of things it might be possible to do in the real world where it turns out Teresa “God fucking help us all” May has the job instead?

The system we have is fucked up, down and sideways. Fucked at its very heart and in every root and branch of every godforsaken system that’s ever been spawned from it. It’s fucked because of ideology taking precedence over simple home truths about the real world, because whenever it turns into a political battle some numbnuts in government takes it onto themselves to throw a new set of arbitrary and pointless methods to try and make water flow uphill at the wall and see which ones stick. And then, if I question that maybe, just maybe, a fisherman from Senegal who’s moving to the bright lights of the city, like millions of others before him, might actually not be a bad person just because he tried to game the asylum process, but might actually just be someone looking to try and get a fair shake at the stick, and that maybe rather than spend all that money on the appeals process perhaps we should look at ways to quietly and unfussily let him try his hand for a year or two and then, if he fails, go back to whence he came like many more millions before him did as well, that’s because I’m some ideological person who hasn’t thought through “how it will all work”? Like anyone else thought about how it would all work before?

The way I see it’s like this. Either we accept that net migration is something we basically have no control over, we set visa levels approximately according to demand, put money into front line services that try to make sure paperwork is in order at the Embassy level rather than into rearguard action that seeks to deport fixed numbers of people regardless of circumstances, and basically treat demographic shift as a thing to manage administratively. Or, we get our panties in a wad, freak out every time a tabloid publishes something racist, slash visas and visa funding, throw resources at trying to prevent demographic shift, fail miserably, and then still have to administratively deal with it as an actual thing that happened, except because we were freaking out we now don’t have the correct paperwork and everyone’s up in arms about these “failed asylum seekers” we’ve got in B&Bs because we’re idiots who can’t work out how to make a problem go away.

There’s my ideology. If you want it in a shortened form, it consists of the words “let’s not be such fucking idiots.” Go ahead, though, by all means, and explain to me why the current situation isn’t an epic clusterfuck apparently designed by drunken baboons. If you can’t do that though, you might want to consider why anyone who hasn’t got some kind of ideology behind them might want to defend such a system. Do we know for a fact that you’re not taking money from the drunken baboon lobby?

It’s fine that you have that opinion McDuff. Visas should be granted inline with demand you say? So we could have a million or more people just moving here a year for a couple of decades. Hmmmm.

Here’s something that I’m loath to point out on LC, but it’s just something that has been writen about. Apparently, the Thamesmead estate in outer south east London is the worst postcode for internet fraud in the UK …. according to people from the post office and people who look for such paterns. And they’re blaming Africans who live there for it.
Half the documentation supplied for visas for the UK in Nigeria is fraudulent, so there is a culture of ”trying it on” in Nigeria that is unusually commonplace it would seem.

When coming to a new country to try to get on in life, and you are faced with the stark reality of what is on offer jobs wise – poor wages, working in security or warehouses or dirty jobs in food processing, the temptation must be there to take short cuts …… and this is usually where someone would stick the boot in to someone saying such a thing like I just have.

But surely, if you make a ”wild frontier” – which must be fair enough to call the bedsitland immigration hotspots in Britain, then this culture of subverting the rules and cheating the system will surely follow. You only have to spend a little time on the high streets of these immigration first ports of call to understand what I mean.
They are spaces where the rule of law is flouted quite easily and a black economy flourishes.

But I know from experience that this is not an area the left will want to explore, or even admit to. Or if they do it will just be to blame ”the system” and racism.

Here was the culmination of such an area getting a bit out of control a few years ago.
Whether the police response was OTT is an interesting question, but it seems the area had fallen into some blatant criminality. It is one of those ”first ports of call” neighbourhoods.

We could have that, yes. Or we might not. Either way, it’s fucked, right? Your “million or more” coming in under the system are going to be all Nigerian internet scammers. Or, they’ll come in illegally and be traffickers.

Welcome to the fucking brave new world. Lots of people in it. More than three times as many as there were 100 years ago. Can you believe that? Global population in 1910 was about 1.7 Bn, now it’s 6.9Bn. And you think some million folks drifting around here or there is the kind of thing we can keep a lid on?

Hells, I ain’t talked a single thread of my own personal ideology the whole time I’ve been here, short of expressing some kind of vague inclination towards the idea that it’s a bad idea to lock up children. I’m just talking practicalities. You want to label my ass “the left” and have some argument about what we will or will not be willing to talk about for fear of being called racist, I could give a shit. I’m just wondering how you look at what’s going on out there and then say “yup, this sure seems like it’s all working out just fine.” Shit is fucked up all over. If you’re happy with that then you keep on keeping on and saying that it’s something to do with how come some lady in Brighton doesn’t want her backyard to turn into Peckham. Me, I think that’s a crock of shit and nobody knows where their arses or their elbows even are in this mess, let alone how to tell which from which.

“Demand” by the way doesn’t have to be as simple as applications, although it’s a good starting point. If you turn down a visa application and the person doesn’t come over, well, there you are, you’ve knocked a digit off a number that won’t feel it, well done you. If you turn down a visa application and the person comes over and clogs up the asylum system, what you did was pointless and you’d have been better off granting the visa, no? If you turn down a visa application and the person comes over illegally, what you did was pointless and you’d have been better off granting the visa. Politicians been massaging the numbers to try and appease the jackals in the editorial staff at the Daily Express, who can not and will not be appeased, because they are scum. All I suggest is that we stop trying to do the impossible, look at the numbers and set them so that natural migratory flow happens in a way we can understand and manage.

I might suggest, though, that if this shitstorm we’ve got happening right now outside on our little island looks so appealing that we’ve got 10M people clamouring at the door waiting to get in, any delays we put in place with visa applications are simply that, delays. If the UK in the middle of a recession with a new slash-and-burn government looks good, what kind of world of hurt is lying in store for us when the 21st century really kicks off good, when energy price spikes and changing weather patterns really start to hammer the third world? We can figure this shit out now, or we can put our fingers in our ears, keep pretending that visa admissions processes dictate migratory pressures, and then wonder why doing the same wrong thing for the same wrong reasons keeps fucking us up.

You keep making it sound like we have some kind of choice other than that. Like you’ve got some magical third way that’s capable of somehow making life all rose-smelling and sparkly or something. Like there’s some sort of immigration policy that changes the pressures outside the borders. Like there’s some way of altering the demographic structure of the planet via a private members bill in Westminster. Or, I don’t know, what you got? What are you actually saying? That immigration causes problems. Sure, it does. Have we got any fucking choice in the matter? Not without going all Gaza strip on our own selves, we don’t.

You have to bear in mind that the current situation is happening when we already have slashed visa numbers and shut down embassy funding, when we already send people who claimed asylum back to their own countries to be shot in the head, when we already locked up children and broke up families and beat people in the head for not getting on the plane. What’s your fantastic plan for making ourselves even less attractive a destination for your average immigrant, man? We going to give every non citizen a friendly shiv to the ribs now, just to make them feel unwelcome? You keep talking about how it’s not racist to want to keep numbers down. I keep telling you I don’t give a shit whether it’s racist or not, you could be doing it because Ghandi himself appeared to you in a dream, the problems are not ideological, they are practical, to whit: you can’t alter the number of people moving from one place to another in search of resources without being a massive cockmonkey about it and fucking up human rights even harder than we already have done.

Now you want to make the argument that that’s the price we have to pay, that we’re better off closing down Fortress Britain and battening down the hatches against the coming demographic storm, then I’ll listen to the argument. I’ll disagree, but I’ll at least accept you’re talking about the actual planet Earth. If you just keep talking about how we have all these things the left isn’t talking about regarding how immigrants cause social problems, like this was some kind of new problem, like people moving from the country to the city didn’t cause the exact same shit back in the industrial revolution, like the favelas of Rio don’t exist, I’m going to keep wondering who you’re talking to. I don’t care if you’ve got a problem with immigration because you are Mother Theresa or Nick Griffin. I am just asking how in all the blue hells you plan on doing anything about it.

I don’t disagree with some of your main points McDuff, but it’s a conversation that it seems few people on LC seem interested in having.
I couldn’t give a toss really one way or the other, as if it all did become a bit chaotic, It would at least make my later years of life interesting. I don’t have much in the way of material wealth and will be happy enough to have a little bed sit in the middle of it all – in Hackney perhaps. Or maybe I’ll retire to Mumbai … or Shanghai if it’s allowed.

What would interest me though would be if it was possible for people on the left to explore the fear and prejudices of ordinary people and not just slag them off as racists if they were less than enthusiastic for their neighbourhood to become a new Peckham.
And we could even discuss something like this BNP video about Wembley in a non shrill manner.

I’ve posted that video before on another leftist site, and what happens is it’s either ignored or someone wants to know why I put that shite up on the website – and that’s about it. It doesn’t really go any further. Even after explaining that I wasn’t doing it to be provocative or ”pro BNP” but to discuss the issue they raised on it. And how the extreme diversity of Wembley came to that degree quite quickly.

Because the description you give McDuff, means that more and more places will become like that ….. which is OK, I like places like that personally – but perhaps people in Norwich would rather not want their city to become like that ….. at least not too quickly. Where numbers overwhelm the possibility of integration and where you can get a ”Tower of Babel” effect and there can be a tendency for the public space to be deminished as people retreat into family and community.

Remember, many charge us as being a racist country in the first place. Our police are racist, our courts and prison services, many councils, our governments are said to be racist sometimes, so it can all add up to have a certain volatility that the Daily Mails of this world are always going to highlight.

That’s the bit that intrests me. Wondering at which time you can give the moaners and Little Elglanders a bit of a break – because of course people are afraid of change. They always have been. Condemning them for it is so easy, but that’s just what most humans are like.

I’m sorry, what the fuck? Can we discuss that BNP video without being “shrill”? What’s to discuss. Racist guy doesn’t think people who aren’t white are British. Why is this new? Why is it something I need to concern myself with? What, should I seriously take his concerns on board? Dude has a problem with dusky hues, that horse has bloody bolted now. He can move up north to Crewe if he gives that much of a fuck about it.

Unlike some, I guess I’m not fucked about calling racism racism. I don’t really care if it’s understandable grandma racism, it’s still racism. Yeah, we all have a slightly racist grandma or aunt who goes off on one after a couple of brandies, and yeah, we don’t necessarily always confront these people with a treatise on why they’re wrong because there’s other concerns to deal with at the time. But, similarly, I don’t think it’s very sensible to base policy discussions on what my nan says when she’s had a bit too much to drink. For fuck’s sake, man, what the hell?

For all your protestations this sounds an awful lot like you’re trying to sneak in some kind of thing under the radar here. Like we should accept that the “concerns” of these people aren’t racist. Well, fuck, sometimes they are. I mean, hell, it’s not as if people don’t have similar prejudices about bloody Scousers, is it? You can find all manner of white, british born groups in the UK who people don’t have a very high opinion of. Can’t for the life of me, though, think why that would in any sense justify us taking those prejudices and coming up with some legislative barrier limiting how many Liverpudlians could move to Manchester, you know? And I can’t see anywhere in your insinuations here whether you’re arguing for anything more sensible than that.

What does “cutting the little Englanders” some slack actually entail, in your world? It’s all very well concern trolling, but what is it that you think would come out of these hypothetically fruitful discussions the left isn’t interested in having?

Well McDuff, I already mentioned David Goodhart’s essay ”Discomfort of Strangers” as being a possible start for such a discussion.

It’s a pity that you couldn’t see past the BNP video being a BNP video, as it threw up some useful images. Firstly the camera showed what we’re talking about, and that it’s not just about race, but rates of immigration. It was obvious from that video that so many of those people weren’t just ethnic minority people, but new immigrants from poorer countries, with who knows what skills and education. If your only answer to that is ”so what?” then we’re obviously not wanting to have the same discussion.
I also have mentioned previously that the local MP has said that half of Brent’s children live in poverty.

The children of the long established Indian community who have done very well will not be the poor, and I would guess that having parents who were recent poor immigrants with will be a big factor in child poverty. That has of course got implications for the whole borough and wider society. Social services, policing, benifits and tax credits, employment and unemployment.

This is a discussion killer.

For all your protestations this sounds an awful lot like you’re trying to sneak in some kind of thing under the radar here.

So you blame old granny for being a bit loopy when she’s had a drink and she starts spouting off like the Daily Express – even if she lived in the middle of the most mult-cultural bedsit lined Wembley street and found herself somewhat unable to have much in common with the people around her because of such different experiences.
Would she have much in common with the people at the market, when these days once inside the market it was pretty much the same as one on the Indian Subcontinent?
And she went off on one about how she worked there as a girl during the war, but these days she never went there as you couldn’t even hear English being spoken.

I think with all your ”what the fuck’s” McDuff, you’re proving how impossible it is to talk about stuff like this outside a two dimensional partizan one, where accusations of racism or trolling come pretty quickly in the lexicon of possible responses.

Another reason I thought the BNP vidieo was interesting was because I wondered what percentage of the population of the UK might actually have some sympathy with it’s message. Not for the BNP or him as a person, and not even for some of the language used in it, but the broad mesage of it, that there can be places where there has been too much immigration too quickly which has changed an area too fast, and will have left people like your granny with a bit of a cultural disadvantage, as the ”out with the old, in with the new” effect has swept around her so quickly that she feels somewhat alienated by it.

It’s all very well saying that change is inivitable just because of the inequalities of wealth between Europe and Africa and places like Pakistan, but lets not ignore how things work out on the ground, and that most of the population are not as progressive as many of the people on this website.

The thing about ”cutting people a little slack” is about not lording it over millions of people and denouncing them as scum because they don’t (or are unable to) share your vision.
It’s about not being a hectoring leftie who behaves like a government whip to win any argument.
In my opinion an interestiong discussion would just start from here, but I’m guessing that ours is about ended. And to me that is the problem, as we really haven’t even got out of first gear yet.

Sorry damon, but posting a BNP video and declaring it ‘interesting’ is not going to advance the discussion. It’s absolutely true that we need a more honest debate on immigration, but BNP propaganda has no place in this.

I disagree with some of your points and take on board others. But I really don’t understand how an obviously racist BNP video is good for debating…?


Back in my day we had something called “consider the source.” You might not have heard of this, but it basically meant that if an avowedly racist organisation, run by racists, produced some propaganda talking about race, you didn’t have to go out of your way to pay that much attention to it. This is because racists, you see, are liars. Not deliberately so, more in the way that creationists are. Black people are bad, there are some problems in proximity to some black people, therefore black people are caused the problems, therefore this just goes to show black people are bad. I’m not interested in “seeing past” the BNP for the same reason I’m not interested in “seeing past” the fact that Osborne is a Tory – to ignore the circumstances of propaganda’s production is to rob yourself of the capacity to understand it.

Oh, and “scum” specifically referred to the editorial staff at the Daily Express, and I’d say that to their faces. If you can publish a newspaper like that once, let alone on a continual basis, I really don’t see what you’re bringing to the world that couldn’t be done just as adequately by a festering sack of horse shit in a novelty bowtie.

As for my grandma, can I just point out that said grandma is a mishmash of many grandmas I have met, mine and others, but that specifically, both my grandmas live in parts of the UK that are whiter than socks worn with sandals, and on the paternal side she runs a matriarchy of gossip that stretches over three counties. Not quite your stereotype; although I’ll concede that, too, may be based in experience, it’s not necessary for people to be genuinely cast adrift in order for them to harbour racist sentiments.

Now, there’s also no doubt that older people can have problems with changing cultures and demographics. This, though, isn’t an “immigration” issue. They have exactly the same problems when it’s dealing with the generations below them who’s grandmas they know or knew. Old people living alone and isolated from their community is no less tragic for being so common, but it happens whether immigration is responsible or not, unfortunately.

So here’s where most of the objections to the way the debate is framed goes (oh, and by the way, fuck the word “honest”, by the way, it’s a weaselly bit of unspeak). So many of these issues are nothing to do with “immigration” and more to do with “life changes”. Things change. The world is not the same as it was 50 years ago. This might involve there being a few more people around you don’t recognise. It also might involve people having more respect for people from other cultures, or people not thinking it’s quite as acceptable to slap their wives for not having the dinner on the table. Or they might involve iPhones, which are probably perplexing if you’ve never involved yourself much with that computationer stuff but which aren’t, in general, a bad thing.

That change cuts different ways, as well. In the States the last 50 years has seen increasing ethnic ghettoization. While we all know about the Jim Crow laws and such, the civil rights movement actually took place against an urban background that was mixed race. Now, in many cities, whites and blacks simply don’t live in the same parts of town like they used to. Some people prefer that. Some people complain that it’s not as good as the old days. One enduring common factor across all human experience is the fact that some people are going to think that kids these days have it too easy, that things were better back in the old days.

OK, so pretty much most of what you’re talking about can be rolled up under that, and I’m sorry but the general unfairness of life is a bit of a bigger issue than a comment thread in LibCon can deal with.

So what about the stuff that can be blamed on “immigration”? The language stuff, the relative deprivation, all that kind of thing. Well, my approach to people talking about the problem is first to ask what they intend to do about it. Which is, you recall, something I ask people a lot. Because “oh deary me look at this problem that the Left is totally not interested in discussing” is just simple concern trolling. If you haven’t got a solution, it gets rolled up into the “life is shit all over” column and we move on. If you have, let’s hear it, because the “therefores” in life are where the rubber hit the road. “Immigration has happened too fast and change the culture too quickly for some of its older residents to cope with.” OK. So, therefore, what? We try and increase the provision of social services in those areas? We remove either the new folks or the old folks, ghettoising the area further? We attempt to blanket the entire nation with an air of vague racially charged resentment? We ban people with cultures that are a bit “weird” from moving here?

Therefores are everything. You’ve studiously avoided bringing any to the table. This because you don’t have any or because you’re trying for a one-two sucker punch of getting people to admit to there being some problems caused by immigration before you land your own therefores on them?

Lee @22, obviously this is the internet and few of us actually know each other, and issues of trust can be fragile. I already have an idiot over on Pickled Politics saying things like this regularly:

Suprise suprise to see the BNP defender (Damon) …………….. jumping to Clarkson’s defence !

That was because of my comments on this thread.

I also understand that on LC, threads have a very finite life span, and at three days they should be more or less done. I used the BNP vidieo as a way of ‘cutting to the chase’ as I am aware of the time restrictions and the video of the Wembley street scene showed well, regardless of who made it, what the most mult-cultural first ports of call neighbourhoods can look like.
As I have no idea where people are from. Some people might never have been to areas like that. You might visit London fo the weekend, but never got as far as the outer suburbs or innercity areas where people actually live.

I’m sure there are many people on here who haven’t been to Hackney or Harlesdon or Stockwell. I’ve never been to Sparkbrook in Birmingham to see what it’s actually like for example. So that was the point of using that video. And the question really was, if it was put to people like that, what kind of response would such views get in Britain?
Maybe I should have used a much more neutral video like this one which has no overt message, but is just a stroll through Peckham and the camera sees things how they just are.

McDuff, I’m not so worried about the source, I’m more concerned with being objective about things. For example I just read Rupet Murdoch’s Times and this was on the front page. Statistics about the amount of asylum seekers and other would-be immigrants who won their right of leave to remain in this country on appeal because the Home office couldn’t send anyone in person to argue the case.

The figures are quite staggering and go right back to the opening post of this thread.
The figures are that last year, 17,400 people won their appeal at hearings that the Home Office only sent papers to, but no representatives.

17,400. That figure is amazing. So all those cases were went through painstakingly (I presume) and all the time and expense and then the asylum seekers being told that their claim had failed and they should leave the conuntry …. but who in their right mind would leave when 17,400 people can win on appeal?
Unions say that there are not enough staff to attend court.
It’s not surprising given the numbers involved.

Anyway, McDuff, do you get this? I was not suggesting we listen to any BNP message, I was suggesting we could use that video as a tool. Just like a knife is not a malicious weapon in itself, it depends on what you use it for.

I’m also not so interested in what the Daily Express says, but more interested with how ”we” deal with their banging on about Sangatte in Calais and how people might relate to the argument they push. Like what should we do about a never ending line of young men who want to make new lives in England, and will do what it takes to get in.
Even lying about their age so that they have to be taken into care by the local authorities.
I mentioned this before, but that went nowhere too.

You think ”honest” is a weaselly word McDuff, but it was that kind of thing I was talking about. We don’t really want to talk about all the lies that are told to the Home Ofice and councils so that people can work things to their advantage.
Which just leaves us back at your open door policy. Btw, Sunny Hundal doesn’t support an open door policy if I remember rightly.

I agree with your point about people not being comfortable with change often, in the same way as they might not understand new technology, or how older people in the former communist block got left behind with the sweeping changes when communism collapsed.
The best thing for them really was to hurry up and die.

Also the question ”what are you going to do about it?” is a good one too – as options are not that many.

Although I’m from London, I’m living in Belfast these days, and the contrast diversity wise couldn’t be starker. There has been a long established Chinese community here, but The Troubles tended to keep immigrants away, and that has only started to change in the last few years. It’s ood walking down very homogeneous streets and seeing little terraced houses with their front doors open to the street. In both protestant and catholic working class areas. Because everyone knows each other and people are always just popping in and out of each other’s houses. The only place such a thing might happen in London that I have seen, might be on the landing of a block of flats in Tower Hamlets where all the families were Bangaldeshis related to each other or from the same part of Bangladesh or something. And where the children are free to play on the landings and stairs because its a closed little community. Oh and I guess the Hasidic Jewish communities of north London might also have such a thing going on amongst themselves.

I’m only guessing because I haven’t asked them, but I reckon that the local Belfast people who come from tight little communities, would not be in a rush to have their streets become like some streets in Peckham, with every corner of the globe being represented in one street. Because that community is dependent on familiarity, history and shared experience – which is something you don’t really have in the bedsitland of Walthamstow.
There are some ethnic minority people living amongst these working class Belfast people too, and some mixed race children, but the rates of change are slow just because the numbers are small.

And I don’t have any ”therefores” McDuff, and I’m not trying to do what you suspiciously thught was possible at the end of you last post. Why do you think I want to ”blame” anything on immigration? I don’t.
I might have a problem with the politics of diversity though. In fact I do have.
(If you don’t know what I mean, I’m talking about the likes of Lee Jasper and Al Sharpton in the USA.).
As I said, this is not about making a ”big point” about immigration, but about communication between peoplem on the left, and I see we have a communication problem.

If you weren’t so suspicious and hasty, you might find I was trying to go for a measured argument that would take in issues like these below.

It’s even worse than I said in the last post. In the last five years, 171,060 people have won their appeal against the initial Home Office decision which first refused them.
This is totally outrageous somewhere or other.
That they got their initial assesment wrong so many times.

The figure on the left (middle) is the number of appeals which were granted when there was Home Office representation in court, and the figure on the right is the number of cases each year when the person appealing their initial decision won the right to remain in the UK when no one from the Home Office turned up in court to argue their decision that the person should leave the country.

2005 14,528 1,409

2006 29,927 5,587

2007 30,806 6,112

2008 29,092 11,870

2009 23,997 17,473

totals 128,409 42,651

Grand total over five years: 171,060 cases where the appeal against the initial decision was made in favour of the person wanting to stay in the UK.

Who was it who said it wasn’t ”fit for purpose” several years ago?

damon, what i would like to know is why you think the multiculturalism of peckham and wembley is a problem. i’m a white man living in lewisham – a ‘multi-cultural first port of call’ if ever there was one – and i just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. there are social problems in lewisham, sure, but there always has been, since way before multiculturalism became a reality. lewisham is a historically poor area, so this shouldn’t come as a surprise. i put it down to class and economic inequality, and i’m not convinced that diversity has made this any better or worse.

this is why i disagree with the munira mirza piece you posted. focusing on diversity and claiming that that’s where the problems are coming from takes our attention away from the real issue, because broader issues of inequality disappear from view. poor white people aren’t losing out to immigrants, they’re losing out to rich people. and idiots like munira mirza swallow this divide and rule tactic hook line and sinker. it’s not diversity that’s devisive, it’s the economy that’s devisive.

and on another note, if you don’t want to be called a bnp defender, may i suggust you don’t use bnp propaganda to argue your case?

Lee, I think you have been confused by the title of Munira Mirza’s article.
Maybe you didn’t actually read it – or …… I don’t know. How could you come to that conclusion? Maybe it’s a waste of time trying to argue less than traditional leftist arguments on LC. (See the ”Just do It” thread on climate activism for an example)

Why are you putting words in my mouth saying I have a problem with the multi-culturalism of Wembley or Peckham? I was pointing out trends in this country that can be seen in things like this YouGov survey – but personalising it and saying these must be my personal opinions is a pretty standard tactic of a certain kind of left.
A left that I no way want to be associated with.

Which of the following statements comes closer to your view?

Immigration into Britain over the years has led to the development of a rich
and varied culture – – – – – 25%

Immigration into Britain over the years has led to culture iin Britain being
damaged and diluted – – – – – – 58%

Neither of these / not sure – – – – – – 17%


Why personalise my using those figures. It’s what the thread is about.

But if you couldn’t even understand the Munira Mirza piece, I may as well talk to the wall.

And your comment about my use of the BNP video proves my point. What’s the use?

Oh hang on …….. maybe YouGov is a racist polling organisation. (??)

damon, maybe i’m just not getting your point. i’d be grateful if you could spell it out for me.

in any case, i didn’t say that you think that the multiculturalism of peckham and wembley was a problem for you personally, but you are saying that it is for some residents of these areas. i’m saying that, as a resident of such an area, i don’t think that’s what the majority of people actually think. there is, in fact, a lot of “familiarity, history and shared experience” amongst the people who live in my street. life and the world changes, and you can lament that fact (like some do), celebrate it (like others do) or simply accept it (like most do). i’m sure local belfast people have experienced changes to their communities that not everyone liked.

as to the mirza piece, i have read it as well as numerous other articles of hers, so i’m very familiar with her argument. she says:

“The most pernicious effect of this new racial thinking is how it fosters tribalism between ethnic and religious groups. They end up competing for resources on the basis that they are more excluded and vulnerable than others.”

to which i would reply: no, they end up competing for resources on the basis of them being unevenly distributed in the first place. the poorest people don’t compete for social housing because of lack of housing in britain, but because of the lack of social housing in britain. there’s twice as many bedrooms in this country as there are people to sleep in them, so there’s no lack of housing, it’s just unevenly distributed.

so blaming the immigrants for taking jobs, services and houses is misguided, and i don’t agree with you that we should just accept that that’s how people are feeling. we should be focusing our energies on those who

…on those who have benefitted the most from mass immigration.

Firstly Lee, this clearly isn’t the place for such a discussion. It’s an open forum that can be read by anyone, and I find that a bit creepy really, as you can see from what happens on Pickled Politics where you get people you have never heard of before starting their first ever communication with you ever by saying you (one) support the BNP or something.
And anyway, all the other LC posters apart from McDuff seem to have no interest in taking a conversation in this direction.

The last time I visited Lewisham town centre on a saturday afternoon I found it quite a depressed place. The central market area is quite lively, but that side market that’s partly undercover? What a dive. And the shopping center itself. It echos with poverty.
The Wetherspoon’s pub on the high street is almost like a bolt hole for a fading glimpse of Lewisham past.
Lee High Road is very interesting, but do the people from the big Chinese resturant and the big eastern European supermarket across the road and the north African men who hang out at the cafe have any interaction each other?

Maybe they do. Maybe they all eat shop and hang out in each other’s places.
But that is too specific an area to go into here.

The divisiveness that Munira Murza was talking about (the way I read it) was this:

To challenge the dominance of identity politics, we need to champion an alternative universalist approach. This wouldn’t mean bland similarity, with everybody talking and looking the same. Instead, it would help us challenge the imposition of formal, ethnic categories and allow us to develop richer differences based on character and interests.

That’s nearly four years old now, so maybe it’s getting out of date, or was always a bit suspect – but I remember it as being something that chimed with me when I read it back then.

There may not be a shortage of bedrooms in Britain, but that’s a fat lot of good if half of them are in large underutilised family homes in the suburbs and shires.
There is only so much an inner city borough can do when it has such large numbers of people passing through it.

I am not ”blaming” anyone for anything. But I dispair at the approach of the left sometimes. Have a look at the thread titled ”Why aren’t we talking about Europe’s Roma shame?”
I’ve made a couple of posts on that thread too, but what I say on that is not the the way a forum like LC will want to focus on.

Last point. I don’t deny for a moment that society is evolving all the time, and what is happening is ”organic” in some way …… ie, it just happens, as we are one human race all down here together on the same planet. Of course I accept and welcome that idea, and the sooner we can move on to international co-operation not competition, the better.

But for me, the conversation is the intresting thing, and how arguments are couched and nuanced. Thrusting ideology is not something I care for greatly.

Anyway, the forum has moved on and it’s a bit sad to be left behind talking as if it was a private conversation.

ok mate, thanks for sharing your thoughts on my area. depressing to you, but home to me.

i never said you supported the bnp, i just said that using bnp material isn’t ideal for constructive debate. relax mate.

anyway, you seem to be command a number of unwritten codes of discussion forum conduct that i’m not privvy to and which i seem to be breaking repeatedly, making me feel like i’m treading on eggshells, so adios.

You spend a lot of time telling people what you’re not saying, Damon. Perhaps if you devoted as much time to explaining what your point is rather than circling around your point like a vulture around a dying man, criticising “the left”, whoever the fuckery they are, for not understanding the things you’re obliquely alluding to, you might actually be able to have the conversation you so deeply crave. I don’t understand why you think it is “creepy” for someone to ask you to explain your deeply buried nuances of opinion, on a forum where you’ve been so clearly volunteering swathes of prose.

And seriously, re-read this sentence:

McDuff, I’m not so worried about the source, I’m more concerned with being objective about things.

If you don’t know why that sounds ridiculous, you’ve got no business telling anybody else that they don’t understand stuff. Seriously. If you think you can be objective without considering where information comes from, all that demonstrates is that you don’t actually know what the word objective means.

The way you keep talking about “the left” and “a forum like LC” and suchlike leads me to believe that you’ve got a serious issue with treating people as if they are individuals. Like, a mental block where everyone just gets slotted into categories. I mean, fuck dude, I’ve never even *been* to the Pickled Politics website, why in the name of Jesus H Tapdancing Christ is it relevant what people on there said to you when you posted a BNP video? I’m not “the left”. Why don’t you talk to people about issues, rather than polemecising about what you think those people might or might not want to talk about if they were hypothetical representations of an imagined subgenre of humanity?

If you think Lewisham is depressing, never go to Crewe. There’s no black people in Crewe, that I’ve ever seen. There’s no nothing in Crewe. It’s a shithole. People don’t go to Crewe, they leave Crewe. Me, personally, I’d rather live somewhere people were arriving than somewhere they were leaving. At least you know when people are arriving is that it must be better than at least one fucking place else on the planet. Dying white towns suffering from demographic death, well, you don’t even have that small comfort that you’re not in the worst place on the planet. Maybe that would be something to consider before you try and conflate some random bullshit about “the politics of diversity” with the practical realities of living in a fluid society.

Great McDuff. you’ve been in that shrill mode since the start.
I posted some figures clear as day a couple of posts back taken from a YouGov poll.
Did you notice the figures? We live in a country where 58% of the population agree that: ”Immigration into Britain over the years has led to culture iin Britain being
damaged and diluted”.
So for all our lambasting of Richard Littlejohn and the Daily Mail, they are more in tune with the British public than LC is.

How are we going to spin that? Actually it’s been done before, and what you say is that while that may be true, most of those people are ignorant of the reality of living in inner city areas, and that people that do are the least racist in the country …… which is probably true too.

The BNP film was to show a racist argument and ask how we deal with it …. other than saying ”well that’s Nazi so nothing there counts”.
Which is precicely what you did. Is that the way you deal with that 58% of Britain also? Just call them fascists? I mentioned Pickled Politics as it’s Sunny Hundal’s other website.
Some people read and reply on both. But even on LC I have had one dick calling me ”Pinochet like” – and he just came from nowhere with that, so you might understand why I might cal it creepy. That someone is reading what your saying, says nothing till the day thay say something like that.
You don’t like the word left or leftist. I think this site is happy to be called leftist.
Did you not see these on the main page?

– A new left movement
– An insurgency
– Creating a platform
– Building OurKingdom

Aspects of Lewisham high street are depressing on a saturday morning IMO.
But I agree that so too are lots of other places. One of the worst places I ever saw, and wasn’t expecting it as I’d just gone to catch a ferry, was Hollyhead.

My point has been one that asked how do you deal with the people who would always point out the negatives, if those negatives were real. For example, in 2007, 9 of the 27 teenagers killed in London through gun and knife crime were of Congolese origin.
The Children of Congolese asylum seekers for the most part I presume who had gotten into the inner city gang culture.
I heard the mother of one of the dead Congolese boys in the BBC London studio talking to Dotun Adebayo about it one time. They were like this boy who made some short fims for Channel 4 ……. A J Nakasila.


Remember the 58%. There’s not really anything you can say to them I think. They are not going to get all the reasons why there are statistics like that. From capitalism, to inequality, to personal racism and institutionalised racism ….. which will explain why Lambeth in the early 1980’s was probably one of the most difficult boroughs to police in the whole of western Europe. (you know, when the police tried Operation Swamp 81 which led to the Brixton riots). Of course in hindsight, their policing brought on the riots, but I remember Brixton back then and it had a very anarchic streak which resisted policing.
I used to go home from central London, up Railton Road to Herne Hill and Crystal Palace so I saw how difficult it was for the police. When they tried to enfoce laws there, they needed to do it with numbers – which was a vicious cycle as this tactic just lead to more resentment.

Again, something difficult to explain the causes of to someone who doesn’t have the inclination to listen to all the reasons for why things might happen.

But the thread was meant to be about today, and how to manage the continuing incoming diversity from all corners of the globe …. and how the Home Office are getting it so wrong that last year they refused 171,060 people permission to stay in the country – told them to leave, only for all of those people to win their cases on appeal. Incredible.

You didn’t think that was a worthy point to say anything about McDuff? The numbers are quite staggering. Times it by ten for a decade and tell me where they are all meant to live.
Offset of course though by a smaller number leaving the country.

They could go and live in the dying white towns, but most people understandably prefer not to. Walking around here, I do wonder why some new people chose Belfast. Even the Shankill Road FFS.

You say it’s like me circling a dead animal or something, but I’ve been down this road before and was banned off a website for saying more or less exactly this.
We’ve heard what Trevor Phillips said about sleepwalking into segregation, but it’s not as bad as that in London (that I know best) – but I’m not sure about other places.
I was in Toxteth Liverpool a couple of months ago and that place really sucks.

Anyway, have a look on the thread titled ”Why aren’t we talking about Europe’s Roma shame?” My points and the way the OP started are like oil and water, and again, the OP is what I would call standard left. It would be interesting to discuss that issue of the Roma, but that thread went cold too. Maybe it was me. I’d be interested to see your comment on the thread.

Was that blunt enough McDuff? How do we change the minds of the 58%?

Darn it – mistake. I got a bit carried away with myself.
The 171,060 figure for leave to remain granted on appeal was for the years 2005 to 2009.

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why our immigration system needs an overhaul http://bit.ly/9umocX

  2. Ryan Bestford

    Why our immigration system needs an overhaul – http://bit.ly/bpfyuz (via @LibCon)

  3. Elly M

    RT @libcon: Why our immigration system needs an overhaul http://bit.ly/9umocX

  4. jessica sims

    My piece @libcon today, Why our immigration system needs an overhaul <<plenty others but 4now, as relates to asylum http://bit.ly/9umocX

  5. Julie Gibbs

    RT @libcon Why our immigration system needs an overhaul http://bit.ly/chQZH9

  6. jessica sims

    Correction! Julie & my piece @libcon today! http://bit.ly/9umocX

  7. Sarah Isal

    RT @jmaisi Excellent piece @libcon today, Why our immigration system needs an overhaul http://bit.ly/9umocX

  8. Immigration Tips

    Why our immigration system needs an overhaul | Liberal Conspiracy: However, we at Runnymede believe a credible imm… http://bit.ly/bzF1Ji

  9. Duncan Stott

    RT @libcon Why our immigration system needs an overhaul http://bit.ly/chQZH9

  10. ICAR

    why the immigration system needs an overhaul, Jessica Sims and Julie Gibbs comment on Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/c0zgKS

  11. Runnymede Trust

    Runnymede's Jessica and Julie collaborate on @libcon piece on immigration policy http://bit.ly/a68RMW

  12. Nina Kelly

    Runnymede's Jessica and Julie collaborate on @libcon piece on immigration policy http://bit.ly/a68RMW

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.