Cameron’s silly new plan to limit immigration


by Sunny Hundal    
7:15 am - April 13th 2012

      Share on Tumblr

Daivd Cameron has a new plan to limit immigration, which Sky News are covering today.

The UK Border Agency ran a pilot scheme with four countries (China, India, Pakistan & Nigeria) and vastly increased the number of face-to-face interviews with applicants for student visas.

They found that on average 17% of people they interviewed for student visas would not qualify because they did not speak English properly.

Downing St told Sky News: “Britain is open to the best & brightest but we are going to find out bogus students and stop them coming.”

This is not only a silly idea, but a stunt designed to play to the Conservative base that will backfire.

Assuming we want a managed and legal immigration policy, this will affect a very percentage of legal immigrants: 17% of a third of the total who come to the UK on student visas. Total impact? 6%.

But the impact to the UK could be much worse.

Education is a big source of revenue and a net exporter for the UK. Foreign students pay extensive fees for the privilege of a British education.

1. Some of the disqualified students may have wanted to learn English here. They will no longer be paying fees.

2. The Chinese and Indian media is likely to be even more incensed at these extra roadblocks, as they have in the past. Britain might want the brightest and the genuine but they might decide its less hassle to go to the United States or Canada to study. Who wants to be treated suspiciously when they’re paying so much in fees?

So the number of students coming to the UK from the most important two economies in Asia could drop drastically – further hurting education and our economy.

Nice one Cameron.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Good grief. Getting an education at a uk university in order to use said prestige to get a better job back home is what Cameron’s kiboshing here. As far as I’m aware the average concernstipated about immigration chozzler is more worried about those that are here to stay ‘nicking our women and our jobs’.
Oh well, it still fits in with:
Free movement of capital – let the market decide
Free movement of jobs – let the market decide
Free movement of labour – er, best get the government to clamp down on this one
Which appears to be SOP for the right.

There used to be a ‘College’ for foreign students near where I live – it offered an extensive syllabus and operated out of one room above a company rebuilding vehicle transmissions.
It might have closed/moved now because the guys in the machine shop no longer see the sole occupant – a Nigerian gentleman who would occasionally buy a sandwich from the mobile catering van (they often wondered was he the Principal, Head of Department, senior lecturer, technical assistant or the student?)
I think it only fair to suggest that the cost and quality of education offered may differ, depending on your means and long term aims.

3. Chaise Guevara

Agreed, Sunny, but I don’t think you’re going to win over the anti-immigration crowd by warning them that this policy will mean fewer Indians about the place.

Oh, the reasonable sceptics may agree that this is a stupid policy that prevents exactly the kind of immigration that we want to encourage. But the “sorry, we’re full” charmers will just say that this a COMMON SENSE solution that supports white, British, straight, Christian, NORMAL people, who as we all know are the only victims within society. Or maybe I’m just in a grouchy mood.

Just noticed you picked up on this too.
English language learning for international students is surprisingly one of the UK’s biggest exports, and actually earns the UK more money than the banking sector:
The UK earns around £28bn from overseas students in the English language learning sector, by comparison, the UK earns around £19bn for financial services and £20bn for the automotive industry.
So Cameron’s destroying one of the UK’s most lucrative sectors just to win his party back a few votes from UKIP.
So much for the Tories supposed to being patriotic then.

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/cameron-to-destroy-one-of-uks-biggest-exports-to-win-a-few-more-votes/

Agreed, Sunny, but I don’t think you’re going to win over the anti-immigration crowd by warning them that this policy will mean fewer Indians about the place.

By ”anti-immigration crowd” I presume you mean a majority (probably) of British people.
As for the OP article, what’s wrong with there being some language level requirement?
And why should we be looking to take in the children of the corrupt elites of those four countries? Who in Pakistan can afford to pay the high fees to send their children abroad to a westen university? The people who rob and impoverish their own country.
Same with all of the four countries mentioned. Why do we want them over here so badly?

As for the line about angering the Indian and Chinese media – who cares?
They are often not to be taken seriously and (in India anyway) can be as populist and jongoistic as our own. The attacks on Indian students in Australia was an example of that. Totally sensationalised in the Indian media.

I knew the Daily Mail would pick up on this story. The management of London University are thinking of closing the student bars, because (they say) that in a multi-cultural university, people who want to drink alcohol, should perhaps do it off campus.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128788/London-university-considers-stopping-sale-immoral-alcohol-campus-offends-Muslim-students.html

1. Some of the disqualified students may have wanted to learn English here. They will no longer be paying fees.

So they learning English at home in order to come to the UK to work/study – only for the Tories to tell them ‘don’t bother unless you’re a squillionaire’ because they’re more concerned with keeping the numbers down than having a workable policy, and screwing over non-EU migration is the only tool they have.

7. Man on Clapham Omnibus

So then its agreed . Britain should be an open house for all comers.
I think the Last Labour Government came to regret this idea.
I assume no one here actually worries about overcrowding ,unemployment of British Nationals and outward migration of the middle classes. Discuss!

8. Chaise Guevara

@ 5 damon

“By ”anti-immigration crowd” I presume you mean a majority (probably) of British people.”

I mean “people generally opposed to immigration”, which should be clear from the phrase :) Whether or not that accounts for the majority doesn’t actually affect my point.

“As for the OP article, what’s wrong with there being some language level requirement?”

Because it puts local schools that teach English out of business? I’m all for requiring immigrants to hold a working knowledge of English, btw (with some exceptions). I just think they should be allowed to learn it here, with a mandatory test X months after immigrating.

“And why should we be looking to take in the children of the corrupt elites of those four countries?”

Because they give us money. Are you suggesting they should be blamed for the sins of their fathers? In any case, you’re focusing on a dramatic and non-representative sample.

“As for the line about angering the Indian and Chinese media – who cares?”

Agreed, it’s a bit of a weird point.

9. Chaise Guevara

@ 7 MoCA

“I assume no one here actually worries about overcrowding ,unemployment of British Nationals and outward migration of the middle classes. Discuss!”

While probably inevitable, I don’t think people repeating the generic row about immigration on this thread for the millionth time would be particularly helpful. Nobody’s likely to change their position. Whereas this specific issue is interesting.

10. Man on Clapham Omnibus

@8

Couldnt disagree more. If students want to learn english here then fair enough,but apart from that, no-one should be allowed to permantly settle without having a working knowledge of English. Testing people after 6 months is ludicrous.

Which appears to be SOP for the right.

An equation that could backfire, of course, because with the left it’s the other way around.

12. Chaise Guevara

@ 10 MoCO

“Couldnt disagree more. If students want to learn english here then fair enough,but apart from that, no-one should be allowed to permantly settle without having a working knowledge of English.”

Um, that’s not disagreeing with me, as I *just said* people should be made to take a test before settling permanently. And I’m not sure what distinction you’re drawing between “students” and “people learning stuff”.

“Testing people after 6 months is ludicrous.”

Saying it’s ludicious is ridiculous! Come on, using a pejorative word to describe my position is not an argument.

Chaise

Because it puts local schools that teach English out of business?

First of all, I would be highly dubious about large numbers of people coming to the UK from Pakistan and Nigeria only to be going to an English language school.
These schools are mainly for young people from the EU to come over for a couple of weeks in the summer and go to classes in London, Brighton and Hastings etc (I thought). What’s so great about TEFL courses?

Tom Pride @4 must be wrong to say that Britain takes in £28bn from teaching english to foriegners. And it can be a crap industry – as this article explains:

The slavery of teaching English.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/3325192/The-slavery-of-teaching-English.html

So coming to the UK to learn English should be OK, but you might be concerned if you had a lot of people from Nigeria wanting to do so. Why would thay want to spend all that money just to learn English when they can learn it at home?

And if they don’t already speak good English, how can that student survive in a degree course at some other subject? Years ago at my further education college, one of my pals was a guy from Bangladesh whose family had paid for him to come to England and study to be an engineer. But the poor chap’s English just wasn’t good enough for him to follow the course. He was pretty clueless in class.

I know another student from India who came to London to study, and she was really disappointed at the whole set up and how nearly every last person in her classes was from overseas. Even some of the tutors had foriegn accents that she couldn’t understand well (she said). This was at South Thames College in Tooting south London.

She said it was nothing like she had thought coming to England to study would be. There were no English people there and she would have prefered it if there were.
She felt she had been dupped by the college sales pitch …. but it was also her own mistaken idea of what England was going to be like too. Being a rich girl from Bombay, she found Tooting to be very down market and too (poor) south Asian for her upper class tastes.

14. Dick the Prick

A sop for the right? Under this government? I doubt it. God alone knows what it is but it ain’t Tory.

15. Man on Clapham Omnibus

@12 that does of course assume you can locate them when you want to test them.
That’s why its a ludicrous idea. People wishing to settle permanently should be able to speak English before they settle and should be tested at the gate.

16. Man on Clapham Omnibus

@9 Disagree. Immigration is the substantive issue. This is a sideshow.

17. Chaise Guevara

@ 15 MoCO

“That does of course assume you can locate them when you want to test them.
That’s why its a ludicrous idea. People wishing to settle permanently should be able to speak English before they settle and should be tested at the gate.”

If you can’t locate them, whether or not they can speak English is hardly your biggest problem, is it? People are LESS likely to vanish into the underworld if you give them a route to legitimate citizenship… and if you tell them that they’ll be turned away at the gate, they’ll just come in through a different gate, one you’re not policing.

And it’s still not clear what you mean by “students”. Do you just mean people at university?

“Disagree. Immigration is the substantive issue. This is a sideshow.”

Agreed, but it’s an issue that has been debated a million times and that people already have strong, probably intractable views on. Whereas this is a specific issue that could get a reasonable conversation around it. I’m not saying it’s more important than immigration generally – that would be ridiculous – I’m just saying that delving into a broader and well-trodden argument is a great way to permanently derail a thread.

For example, witness how articles discussing specific abortion-related issues inevitably turn into “Of course it’s a person!” “Of course it’s not!” slugfests in the BTL comments.

@Dick the Prick – Yep, being unable to reconcile the free market with nationalism has ever been the main problem for the right. Though quite why everyone seems okay with the flight of jobs, capital and wages, though not okay with the flight of people, I don’t know.

19. Chaise Guevara

@ 13 damon

“First of all, I would be highly dubious about large numbers of people coming to the UK from Pakistan and Nigeria only to be going to an English language school.
These schools are mainly for young people from the EU to come over for a couple of weeks in the summer and go to classes in London, Brighton and Hastings etc (I thought). What’s so great about TEFL courses?”

Having trouble following this. What do you mean, what’s so great about them? I didn’t say they were great. Also, what percentage of English-as-a-foreign-language students are only in the UK for a couple of weeks?

“Tom Pride @4 must be wrong to say that Britain takes in £28bn from teaching english to foriegners.”

Why?

“And it can be a crap industry – as this article explains:”

What have anecdotes about poor wages in Rome (if £15k IS a poor wage in Rome, I know not) got to do with people learning English in the UK?

“So coming to the UK to learn English should be OK, but you might be concerned if you had a lot of people from Nigeria wanting to do so. Why would thay want to spend all that money just to learn English when they can learn it at home?”

Presumably because they wanted to get to country with a better quality of life, very possibly following a friend or family member to work in their business. Without a requirement to learn English, these people might stay on the margins of society their entire lives, unable to communicate with their neighbours beyond buying milk at the local shop. If intergration is the issue (and it normally is when English fluency is raised), this is the main thing you want to avoid. Hence a mandatory requirement to learn the language.

Keeping them out until they’ve learned is a step too far: if they want to come now and have a job lined up, it’s not going to hurt if they only speak to their family for the first few months. Likewise it’s unnecessarily cruel if they want to come over to be with someone they’ve fallen in love with.

“And if they don’t already speak good English, how can that student survive in a degree course at some other subject? ”

They can’t, presumably. Who said otherwise?

20. Dick the Prick

@Cylux – you’re spot on there. I guess in all cases of capital, wages, jobs and people it’s the elimination of the extremes. When banks become ‘too big to fail’ whatever the hell that means, it’s like the bat signal on the night sky alerting everyone to the fact that Gotham’s fucked. I’m not sure if ‘right wing’ is inalienably nationalistic and it’s certainly the case that nationalism can find a route without it, I think we can all agree that immigration hasn’t been co-ordinated or planned. Maybe it can’t be, maybe it’s a suck it and see policy. Maybe politicians are contemptable bullshitters who wantonly prevent measuring consequence as it reveals them as charlatans. Not political but NHS reforms, Iraq & Afghanistan, Academy reforms, benefit changes, swelling public service, the Euro etc ad infinitum. Some things are manageable though, it just seems like it’s all just sodding rhetoric these days. No one defines policy. What is Labour’s credo, Tories, Lib Dems, even Respect? It’s some throwaway mnemonic – ‘fairer for all’, ‘a hand-up, not a hand-out’ blah blah fucking blah. They’re just making it up as they go along and it’s all ‘but look at them, they’re worse’.

I kinda like immigration personally but then I don’t have kids so don’t have to worry about anything. I can certainly see why poorer people, people in high density urban areas, people whose kids have schooling issues, people affected by crime where the perp was ethnic (it’s fine that the stats are bollox – any victim has a right to be wrong) want action to drastically reduce immigration. Yes they’re wrong. Yes they instantly become irrelevant but is that illegitimate? I’m a Tory because I want government as far away from me as possible, nationalist – erm..not so much. The votes have got to come from somewhere and if no-one’s picking up the nationalist votes some other mug will be like Alex ’3 salaries’ Salmond. It’s a lot easier fucking an immigrant before he gets here and I kinda think tough, try Greece – nice olives and see ya next year.

@ 18 Cylux,

“Yep, being unable to reconcile the free market with nationalism has ever been the main problem for the right.”

Being unable to reconcile internationalism with opposition to the free market is a problem for the left in the same way, I reckon.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ 20

Interesting points. I think this is largely a language thing. For example, some might claim that nationalism is right-wing by definition, but plenty of people described as right-wing are not nationalists.

The problem, I think, is that “right-wing” can mean socially conservative and/or fiscally liberal, which is quite a large net to cast. This means that libertarians (who tend to be pretty good on things like personal liberties and freedom of expression) find themselves dumped in the same category as little Englanders who are made uncomfortable by gays, don’t want their daughters marrying black guys, and think that the right to express your opinions should not be extended to “weirdos”. And then libertarians are expected to shoulder responsibility for the views of the BNP.

Same thing happens on the other side of the fence, of course – as a socialist liberal I’m regularly asked to account for people like Stalin, as if the fact that we both to some degree fit the label “left” means that we’re in the same club. It’s all misdirection and category confusion, albeit by people who generally aren’t aware that they’re making a mistake.

23. Chaise Guevara

@ 21 TT

“Being unable to reconcile internationalism with opposition to the free market is a problem for the left in the same way, I reckon.”

What do you mean? Obviously these two things are hard to reconcile, but if “internationalism” means roughly the same thing as “globalisation” then that doesn’t exactly seem like a particularly lefty cause.

24. Planeshift

“People wishing to settle permanently should be able to speak English before they settle and should be tested at the gate.”

Agreed provided this is reciprocal and France, Spain, China, Saudi Arabia and everywhere that has a british ex-pat community imposes a similar rule.

25. Planeshift

Oh, and we apply the same standard to English people who want to buy homes in welsh speaking communities in rural wales.

26. Dick the Prick

@22 Chaise. I worked in Bradford for ages and when the London riots went on last year everyone was having a laugh. For politicians to split people on race & religion is fair business but they’re way off the mark. The Bradford riot was political, hands down, business like, but the London riots seemed like a pissed up chav attack. I don’t live in London and I can’t really foresee any circumstances in which i’d want to but immigration is a numbers game not cultural. Blighty has 1 main city just absorbing all life around it which seems remarkable whereas China has 20 larger cities than London and not 1 of us can name any of them. Certain immigrants have legitimate beefs and until passport control becomes in any way practical then much of these initiatives sound a bit like bollox. I’ve got pissed with Serbian war criminals and Cameroonian slaughterers all from the comfort of my buddies local in Croydon, ain’t political – just saying it’s kinda fucked.

Chaise @19. Let’s try a different tack. According to this Telegraph article, 10,000 people from Pakistan are granted UK student visas per year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9201104/Pakistani-students-face-new-visa-test.html

From such a poor country that’s a hell of a lot. Where are they getting the money from and what kind of courses are they coming for? That bit of detail is really the key here. Without it we’re not really sure what’s being discussed. It also says that 40% of them were lying on their applicantion forms.

The way the OP argues this makes that out to be just a trifling unimportant detail, sets this up to just be another ”lefty verses righty” slanging match, with each side calling the other names. Some peple might think that a system that was being abused by 40% of the people using it was actually quite serious and needed fixing.
But they can just be dismissed as Daily Mail reading racists perhaps.
It’s very easy to do that, and always feels good to do so. It gives one that warm fuzzy feeling of the righteous.
Like the Trayvon Martin case in the US is doing.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100149877/the-trayvon-martin-hoodie-trend-a-politically-correct-form-of-blacking-up/

And we still don’t know what the other 60% of the Pakistani students are coming to study. We have seen clearly that thousands of students fron south Asia have ended up living in the squalor of bedsit-land working in the black economy. From walking past them, it seemed that practically all of the people who used to hand out the evening London free newspapers were young people from south Asia.
So a question arises whether you want to encourage this kind of exploitation capitalism.

I questioned the £21bn figure because it seems so absurdly high, and coming for TEFL courses is not a good enough reason. Someone is getting ripped of somewhere, as the actuall teachers of the TEFL courses are not making the big money.

But maybe the thing to do is change the way that immigration figures are calculated.
People from the EU shouldn’t be counted for a start. Many come and go and aren’t real immigrants who have moved for good. And students shouldn’t be counted in those figures either. Why don’t the government just stop counting people on student visas as immigrants? It’s about as stupid as counting tourists as immigrants.

But, IMO, the OP is one of those really unhelpful starting points for a discussion like this, as it starts of totally on the wrong foot. It’s too ideological. Just like the Boris and Ken or anyother issue on LC is. Too partizan.

@ 23 Chaise,

I meant internationalism in it’s original (?) sense. Certainly not as a synonym for globalisation.

29. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

Oh well, it still fits in with:
Free movement of capital – let the market decide
Free movement of jobs – let the market decide
Free movement of labour – er, best get the government to clamp down on this one

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/11/12/leftists-cannot-deal-with-immigration-just-as-an-economic-issue/#comment-330613

Yep, being unable to reconcile the free market with nationalism has ever been the main problem for the right. Though quite why everyone seems okay with the flight of jobs, capital and wages, though not okay with the flight of people, I don’t know.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/11/12/leftists-cannot-deal-with-immigration-just-as-an-economic-issue/#comment-330383

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be honoured or what.

@21

Being unable to reconcile internationalism with opposition to the free market is a problem for the left in the same way, I reckon.

Nope.

31. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

If you’ve deleted my post Sunny (and I want to believe you haven’t and that it’s a problem with the site) then it really is a new low for you.

32. Chaise Guevara

@ 28 Trooper

OK, fair point.

33. Chaise Guevara

@ 27 damon

“Chaise @19. Let’s try a different tack. According to this Telegraph article, 10,000 people from Pakistan are granted UK student visas per year.

From such a poor country that’s a hell of a lot. Where are they getting the money from and what kind of courses are they coming for?”

I think you need statements here, not questions. Although I’m not sure how student visas work; for example, it’s possible that they have to be renewed each year, which assuming a three-year course would cut the numbers to about 3.3k. If student visas are renewed for post-grads doing work experience that could cut the numbers further.

“It also says that 40% of them were lying on their applicantion forms.”

The article says in the header that studies “suggest” that about 40% were lying. Then it totally fails to back that statement up, unless I’ve missed something. Looking at the article, they could be basing it on the fact that the rejection rate was 40% (rejection not being the same as being caught lying), or on the fact that bogus claims from ONE country, Bangladesh, came to 38%, or on other data that for whatever reason they’ve chosen not to share, probably because it’s shaky.

“The way the OP argues this makes that out to be just a trifling unimportant detail, sets this up to just be another ”lefty verses righty” slanging match, with each side calling the other names.”

Where does the OP do that?

“Some peple might think that a system that was being abused by 40% of the people using it was actually quite serious and needed fixing.”

If those people are being caught, then the system is working, no? It’s possible to catch cheats, but preventing people from trying to cheat in the first place would require magic powers (or an agreement with the countries in question to make fake applications a serious offence, which seems unlikely to happen).

“But they can just be dismissed as Daily Mail reading racists perhaps.
It’s very easy to do that, and always feels good to do so. It gives one that warm fuzzy feeling of the righteous.”

Who is doing that here?

“Like the Trayvon Martin case in the US is doing.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100149877/the-trayvon-martin-hoodie-trend-a-politically-correct-form-of-blacking-up/

So your favourite commenter thinks that hoodies are for black people (I’m white and own several, as do most of my white friends) and apparently is offended by cross-pollination between perceived racial cultures. Conclusion: Brendan O’Neil is a bigoted pillock who whines about being offended instead of making an actual argument, which I knew already thanks to the interminable links to his blog provided by you. What has this got to do with anything?

“And we still don’t know what the other 60% of the Pakistani students are coming to study.”

Have you looked it up? This post has several examples of you using your ignorance (and I mean that technically, not as an insult) as a weapon – the implication I’m getting from all of these questions is “we don’t know the answer offhand, so it must be bad”.

“We have seen clearly that thousands of students fron south Asia have ended up living in the squalor of bedsit-land working in the black economy.”

Have we? I’ll need a source for that, it’s not “clear” just because you say so. Source needs to confirm that they are UK students or former UK students working in the black economy, not just south Asian immigrants living in bedsits.

“I questioned the £21bn figure because it seems so absurdly high, and coming for TEFL courses is not a good enough reason. Someone is getting ripped of somewhere, as the actuall teachers of the TEFL courses are not making the big money.”

Again, you need more support for this than a gut feeling on your part. Show me the gap in the numbers.

“Why don’t the government just stop counting people on student visas as immigrants? It’s about as stupid as counting tourists as immigrants. ”

Agree with this. I expect it’s because any redefinition of “immigrant” that reduced the total numbers would be treated as an attempt to massage the figures by the media.

“But, IMO, the OP is one of those really unhelpful starting points for a discussion like this, as it starts of totally on the wrong foot. It’s too ideological. Just like the Boris and Ken or anyother issue on LC is. Too partizan.”

Well, yeah, this is LC after all.

@29 Hey, If I see a good argument, I run with it.

As usual Chaise we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
First of all I would say that we should not be welcoming all the children of the corupt elite to Britain. If we shouldn’t be holding the Grand Prix in Bahrain, we shouldn’t be letting their pampered kids come to the UK to study either.
If people are demanding to know MP’s tax affairs, then maybe we should be asking where this money is coming from too. People were protesting at the Olympics going to China, but we allow the children of the extremely corrupt Chinese 1% to come here with the money they have accumulated from exploiting their people.

Anyone who can afford to send their children to the UK from Pakistan has gotten the money from some dodgy source (probably). But that’s just me. I also think that Russian billionaires shouldn’t be allowed to buy our football clubs and push up our property prices by buying big houses. Apparently we have up to 200,000 Russians in the UK. Why?

As to the ins and outs of people lying on their application forms, it the article said that when interviewd, a percentage of applicants didn’t have the level of English that was shown on their application forms, meaning that they wern’t filling in their own forms.

But the visa business is an industry in Pakistan – and every scam under the sun has already been tried. As is the case too in west Africa, where forged documents in applying for visas happens with ”every other” application (give or take). Just google for examples.

As for people living in squalor after coming to the UK illegally …. what’s really annoying is that if I was to give a load of examples – or ask if you actually knew our London first-port-of-call immigration hot-spots, someone else will get the hump and say I’ve ”trolled” the thread or something. But try these anyway.

”The illegal immigrants desperate to escape squalor of Britain.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17183171

”Jobless Indians ‘face ruin’ in UK”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8481493.stm

”Migrant criminal network exposed.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7505574.stm

36. Chaise Guevara

@ damon

I guess we will have to agree to disagree if you’re going to dodge almost every part of my post. I notice that you’ve said nothing RE your 40% claim (barring a vague, data-free statement), neither to retract or defend it. And that you’ve posted three sources about “immigrants living in squalor”, ignoring the very specific criteria I pointed out would be necessary for your “thousands of south Asian students working in the black market” claim. From this I deduce that you have no basis for the claim, and when you said it was “clearly” true you were trying to use a weasel word to justify a “fact” you’d made up.

As for the rest of it… well, I can’t agree with your “punish the children for the sins of the fathers” philosophy, especially as it seems in practice to relying on discriminating against people based purely on country of origin. And on that note, I personally have no problem with Russians, so when you ask “Apparently we have up to 200,000 Russians in the UK. Why?” I can only respond “Why not?”

I’m more and more coming to the conclusion that you simply dislike foreigners, or at least foreigners en masse, and attempt to couch these views in reasoned argument that falls apart like a sandcastle when you’re asked to source your claims. But no doubt you can rally by claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a horrid middle-class elitist, not in touch with the nebulous group of “ordinary people” we’re apparently supposed to eulogise and obey in all things.

Chaise, a simple google search of the words ”pakistan visa fraud” and other words like ”student” and ”bogus” etc will lead you to a whole load of articles about the industry.

LONDON: A student visa fraud ‘factory’ owned by an Indian couple has been unearthed along with thousands of false university certificates from India and Pakistan, false academic records from British colleges and fake bank statements and pay slips.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/27792-uk-student-visa-factory-uncovered-london.html

I think you are underminining me with pedantry. Going back to the OP – the UK government, who know a thing or two about what happens on the ground in their embassies around the world want to tighten the procedure for how they hand out student visas in countries where corruption and fraud is rampant. And the immigration visa sector is an industry in itself. A fair percentage of it dodgy.
Also try googling ”immigration scams UK”.

And yes I do think we should ask where the money is coming from. How can an 18 year old from a provincial Chinese city be affording to go to university in Europe or the USA?
This website hates British toffs and Tories with a vengence, and it’s not so different to be sniffy about taking the money of the rich 1% from developing countries. Particularly ones like China.
As for Russians, the wealthy Russians of today mostly got rich by stealing their country’s wealth. We should discriminate against them (if we could).
Of course a lot more regular professional Russians have come through since then and are not tainted by that great theft of the 1990s, but the oligarchs should not be offered an easy ride in the UK I think. Not that we’re much better of course.

As for Saudis – I’d ban them from the country completely. They don’t let us visit as tourists and they are a slave society. So is the UAE – I went to Dubai for a week and saw it for myself. It’s feudal.

As for ”elitism” – you’re doing it yourself when you come to the conclusion I say this because I ”don’t like foreigners”.
I’m quite pleased to live in a multi-cultural society that has lots of foriegners and different minorities. It makes life more interesting and often improves the society too. But there’s an awful lot of BS that can come with it too – and that starts off with people who start accusing everyone else (or those they don’t care for) of being racists. The left are notorious for it – and the Trayvon Martin case is just the latest example of it. It was there in the English riots and the police killing of Mark Duggan in Tottenham too. It’s not me that creates all these convoluted arguments about how it all comes down to society’s and police racism. It’s the left who make those accusations and don’t allow any cross examination of their claims.

And you might not like O’Neil’s description of hoodie wearing in solidarity with Trayvon Martin – but it’s a point of view, and one I think there’s some substance in.
Maybe even the half hispanic white man might get found to have shot in self defence – who knows? But I do agree with this:

This isn’t real solidarity with poor blacks, with teenagers who get attacked by armed security men. It is more akin to self-promotion, a political version of fancy dress in which the hoodie-wearer primarily aims to send a message about himself and his inner decency. It is a bit like all those European and American students and fashionistas who parade around in the keffiyeh, the Arab headdress made popular by Yasser Arafat, despite the fact that they understand very little about the history of the conflict in the Middle East. Their aim is also simply to wrap themselves in the traditional clothing of what they presume to be a “victim class” of people. In one fell swoop they get a cheap thrill from dressing like an oppressed people and also advertise to all and sundry that they are good, caring individuals whose hearts hurt for Palestine. The Trayvon hoodie trend is a distinctly American version of the keffiyeh fashion.

Maybe even the half hispanic white man might get found to have shot in self defence – who knows?

He was told not to follow by emergency responders, mumbled “fuckin’ coon” under his breath during said phone call, had a history of dozens of calls to 911 to report suspicious black kids (including one of a ‘nine year old male’), and despite claims from his father about getting beaten up with his head bashed against the sidewalk and his nose broken, pictures of Mr Zimmerman taken in the immediate aftermath showed no physical damage or blood whatsoever, which given his close shaven head should have been easily visible.

Essentially if you stalked, threatened, terrified, and incited someone into attacking you and killed them, you would be guilty of murder, and should be arrested and charged with it. We’ll have to see if Zimmerman’s connections can get him off the 2nd Degree Murder charge.

39. Chaise Guevara

@ 37 damon

“I think you are underminining me with pedantry.”

This is a pretty classic fall-back whine for someone who’s been caught lying. Bloody pedants, demanding evidence-based policy! Who do they think they are?

“As for ”elitism” – you’re doing it yourself when you come to the conclusion I say this because I ”don’t like foreigners”.”

BUY A FUCKING DICTIONARY. I am so SICK of your pathetic attempt to brand everyone an elitist. There is NOTHING elitist about calling a spade a spade. You are certainly a bigot, you admitted it and even seemed proud of it on the other thread. Given that your disdain for people who aren’t like you is a matter of record, added to the fact that you’re using “facts” you’ve pulled out of your arse to demand that we let fewer foreign people in, not to mention that you seem to think that the presence of Russians is a de facto bad thing, it’s hardly a massive leap of logic to work out your true motives here.

OMG, someone criticised me! He must be an elitist! Elitist, waah, elitist!

Fuck off, seriously. At least until you’ve developed the mental capacity to hold a conversation without just spamming the same unjustified ad hom over and over again.

40. Robin Levett

@damon #5:

I knew the Daily Mail would pick up on this story. The management of London University are thinking of closing the student bars, because (they say) that in a multi-cultural university, people who want to drink alcohol, should perhaps do it off campus.

No it isn’t.

Firstly, the article is about London Metropolitan University (formed 2002, student population c28,000) not the University of London (formed 1836, student population in excess of 135,000).

And in any event, the story is simply overblown – see:

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/another-fake-story/0019078

Cylux, at least Zimmerman is to face trial now. We’ll see what happens. But no good can come out of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton involvement in a cases such as these.
The shooter is as white as Barack Obama is. In my opinion, the racial politics is the real problem here.
We have a lesser version of it in the UK – which is pushed by people like Lee Jasper. ”No justice – No peace” goes the slogan, and marches to police stations when a black person dies in custody or is shot like Mark Duggan.
The implication being, that the police have always been racists, and still are. And that these deaths are highlt suspicious, and a possible cause of the deaths is police racism.

Robin Levett. It’s a London university. Does it matter which one?
It’s Professor Malcolm Gillies, the vice chancellor who has proposed it, so I’m not sure what your point is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/apr/12/university-alcohol-free-zones-muslim-students

I’m not spinning the story, I’m only going on the words he has spoken himself.

He said he saw little reason for the university to subsidise a student bar on campus when there were “at least half a dozen pubs within 200m”.

And he also inmplies that having student bars on campus is divisive, because it’s not sensitive enough to people who have a dim view of drinking alcohol.

Chaise Guevara – you reserve the right for yourself to ”call a spade a spade”.
But when I do as much …. you seem to think that’s not legitimate.

Why complicate things? Start from the OP….. which says how silly it is to be trying to cut down on student numbers from particular countries. But visa fraud is such a huge problem in many countries though. I don’t know if you accept that it is or not.
Do you know how much British embassies and High Commissions are flooded with false documents in the pursuit of visas? I remember a TV programme about the UK High Commission visa section in Ghana, and an employee from there said they were almost overwhelmed with them.
You could buy any fake document you liked in the streets outside. Fake everything.
A quick google brings up this, which corroborates what I’ve said:

The Acting British High Commissioner to Ghana, Mr. Robin Gwen has noted that the supposed high refusal rate of Ghanaian Visa applicants to the United Kingdom is due to the equally high rate of forged documents presented by applicants.

In her report to the British Parliament, an independent Monitor for Entry Clearance, Miss Fiona Lindsay, ranked Ghana as the 2nd highest refusal rate country with fifty three point seven per cent (53.7 %) after Uganda. The report put the global refusal average for non-settlement Visas as fifteen point four per cent (15.4%), a rise from thirteen per cent (13%) in 2002-2003.

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=85576

Russia isn’t in the EU, so to be allowed to live in the UK you have to belong to the wealthier class of Russians. Big Russian money is tainted with gangsterism. Or was anyway. That’s how their form of capitalism started off. By looting the country’s resources.
It’s funny how you equate my suspicion of wealthy foriegners from developing countries as part of a general ”bigotry”. Do you think that all the children of the Burmese generals should be allowed to come to UK universities? I don’t. And if there was a way of screening Chinese applicants I’d do that too. It’s probably impossibe though.

But I know the routine. Rather than picking up on the points I have made as ‘fair commen’t, the reaction amongst many is more likely to put the boot in.
It’s like: ”if you think we are going to pick up a conversation from there, you’ve got another thing coming”. That’s why I call it elitist.

This is a pretty classic fall-back whine for someone who’s been caught lying. Bloody pedants, demanding evidence-based policy! Who do they think they are?

First there is the opening post saying it’s silly to try to cut down on overseas students.
I have brought up issues like this – that 30 seconds using google brings up:

The Acting British High Commissioner to Ghana, Mr. Robin Gwen has noted that the supposed high refusal rate of Ghanaian Visa applicants to the United Kingdom is due to the equally high rate of forged documents presented by applicants.

In her report to the British Parliament, an independent Monitor for Entry Clearance, Miss Fiona Lindsay, ranked Ghana as the 2nd highest refusal rate country with fifty three point seven per cent (53.7 %) after Uganda. The report put the global refusal average for non-settlement Visas as fifteen point four per cent (15.4%), a rise from thirteen per cent (13%) in 2002-2003.

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=85576
And there’s loads more like that. It’s the same in Pakistan I’d guess, as getting visas anyway you can is big business. This is just one way.

The rest of Chaise’s points are daft. I didn’t speak against ”foreigners” being allowed into the UK easily, but that we should be discriminating about who we let in. And rich people from corrupt countries should not be given the red carpet treatment.
And that there’s not much difference between China and Burma in many respects.

44. Robin Levett

@damon #41:

Robin Levett. It’s a London university. Does it matter which one?

It’s a university in London; it is not London University. Referring to it as “London University” is like saying that someone graduated from Oxford, when they went to Oxford Brookes. Yes, it does make a difference whether it was the University of London, or a body formed by the merger of two former polytechnics, that is querying continuing subsidy to its union bar.

It’s Professor Malcolm Gillies, the vice chancellor who has proposed it, so I’m not sure what your point is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/apr/12/university-alcohol-free-zones-muslim-students

I’m not spinning the story, I’m only going on the words he has spoken himself.

Let me remind you of what you originally said:

The management of London University are thinking of closing the student bars, because (they say) that in a multi-cultural university, people who want to drink alcohol, should perhaps do it off campus.

So your spin was “no drinking on campus”

He said he saw little reason for the university to subsidise a student bar on campus when there were “at least half a dozen pubs within 200m”.

Since when did someone’s paraphrase of someone else’s words become “words eh has spoken himself”.

You may have missed the comment in the page I referred you to, referring to what is being proposed:

“Professor Gillies said he would work with the student body to move towards having areas on campus where ‘one serves alcohol and others don’t’”

And he also inmplies that having student bars on campus is divisive, because it’s not sensitive enough to people who have a dim view of drinking alcohol.

Does he? Is that a quote, or a paraphrase by someone with an axe to grind?

Yeah ”whatever” Robin Levett. The story is in the Guardian article.

He told the Guardian the makeup of his institution had changed considerably over the past few decades. In the past it had been “substantially Anglo Saxon – now 20% of our students are Muslim,” he said.

“We therefore need to rethink how we cater for that 21st-century balance. For many students now, coming to university is not about having a big drinking experience. The university bar is not as used as it used to be.”

Gillies also told the conference that universities needed to be more cautious in their portrayal of sex than in the past.

“Gillies also told the conference that universities needed to be more cautious in their portrayal of sex than in the past.”

From my experience at uni many decades ago, there was no one trying to thrust some religious values down my throat regardless.

If anyone wanted to be religious, that was their business and that was respected. OTOH they were expected to keep expressions of their religious faith and values within their own community. That sentiment of mutual tolerance seems to be on the decline, which leads me to wonder what impact that must be having on the teaching of some academic subjects such as philosophy, political and social theory, biology, psychology and history.

The old idea was that subjects were taught on their merits and on the basis of the results from research studies without regard to unsolicited theological interventions from the margins. It is starting to look as though that understanding is in danger of being challenged.

As for sex, that doubtless happened or not in private according to inclinations. Providing it was kept private, no one made a public issue about it.

Try this:

The Bloomsbury Group — or Bloomsbury Set — was an enormously influential group of associated English writers, intellectuals, philosophers and artists, the best known members of which included Virginia Woolf, John Maynard Keynes, EM Forster and Lytton Strachey. This loose collective of friends and relatives lived, worked or studied together near Bloomsbury, London, during the first half of the 20th century. According to Ian Ousby, “although its members denied being a group in any formal sense, they were united by an abiding belief in the importance of the arts”. Their works and outlook deeply influenced literature, aesthetics, criticism, and economics as well as modern attitudes towards feminism, pacifism, and sexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomsbury_Group

Many of us still believe that is a good model to admire and to aspire towards.

Bob B, the problem is actually this guy from the university – Malcolm Gillies.
He’s put his foot in it and students are asking him to apologise.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=419642&c=1

He had quite patronisingly refered to Muslim students like this:

“We’ve got a younger generation that are often exceedingly conservative, and we need to be much more cautious about sex too,” he said. Many female Muslim students were taken to university by a close male relative.

I never ceased to be amazed at the strenuous efforts made by the Religious Right in America to impose its views and values on the American population at large despite the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As best I can tell from the news reports, Prof Gillies seems to have trodden on many toes at the Metropolitan University in London. On reflection, I can look back with some nostalgia at my time as a student when we were not impacted by the campaigning of vociferous religious pressure groups attempting to impose their theology on others and like to think that they would have been given short shrift had they tried to do so. IMO the French are absolutely right in their efforts to keep religious affairs out of education.

49. Robin Levett

@damon #45:

The story is in the Guardian article.

It is indeed; and it’s a different story from your original spin; which was, let us remember, that one of the three premier universities in the country was thinking of shutting all its bars and banning drinking on campus.

50. Chaise Guevara

@ damon

“But I know the routine. Rather than picking up on the points I have made as ‘fair commen’t, the reaction amongst many is more likely to put the boot in.”

I have tried to have a sensible and sober conversation with you, despite the fact that you’ve not even attempted “fair comment”. You’ve misrepresented sources, made up facts and then tried to cover your arse by posting “evidence” that isn’t evidence, thrown your favourite ad hom around with your usual oblivious abandon, and cheerfully admitted that you’re a bigot and apparently have no problem with that.

My patience is at an end. You are incapable of mature and honest debate, so I’ve given up trying to have one with you. This doesn’t mean you’ve somehow claimed the moral high-ground by being so insufferable that you eventually provoked me into snapping (although you can go on thinking it does if it makes you happy). The “act like a dick then tell the other guy off when he finally shouts at you” trick is a classic tactic and it doesn’t impress those of us who recognise it for what it is.

Also, I’m not sure how to engage with someone who LIKES being a bigot. The inferential gap is too wide.

Robin Levett, your points are as fatuous as Chaise Guevara’s.
The guy at the university says that there are plenty of bars near the university and is questioning the need for them to be on campus. Whether I got his exact words excactly right or not is just pedantry. Have a pop at him, not me.

Speaking to a conference of university administrators in Manchester, he said that for many students, drinking alcohol was “an immoral experience”.

Chaise, stop being a drama queen. You have chosen not to engage with the facts.
The fact is that visa fraud is a massive problem for embassies. Look for yourself. Google the words. When I put some examples up you just dismiss them.
I think it’s perfectly acceptable for British staff working in Pakistan to tighten up their visa process when they’re handing out 10,000 a year – in an extremely poor, corrrupt and feudal country.
But you dismiss all that.
The same goes for Nigeria – scam capital of the world. Have you seen the corruption league tables which rank countries accordingly?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/dec/01/corruption-index-2011-transparency-international

So I really don’t know what your point is. Though I’m guessing that you just don’t want to take up the argument from there. And accept that officials handling visa requests are inundated with fraudulent documents and lies about the purpose for wanting to go to the UK etc.

Just google ”bogus colleges”.
You get things like this.

http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Course/Bogus-Schools.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8159227.stm

52. tigerdarwin

Its already hurt my tour business which I run in conjunction with other travel services.

When I pointed out the problems on Con Home they accused me of being only interested in my pocket.

I raised an eyebrow at that accusation for obvious reasons.

A country that is really benefiting from this isolationist easy target finding nonsense is Germany which has always had a strong lingua franca base in Russia and Eastern Europe. It is keen to expand this part of its economy.

One wonders what planet the right of the Tory party are on.

53. tigerdarwin

@ 5 ”And why should we be looking to take in the children of the corrupt elites of those four countries?”

Daily mail bigot alert

Blimey. They are not often the children of the corrupt elite ( bit of catch all anti foreigner DM nonsense term)

Many are from the aspirational classes , business and the like – keen for their children to get on. They save and sacrifice to end their children to the UK.

Once again narrow minded , ill informed and jingoisitc.

Ah, here we are again–liberals come over all libertarian as soon as immigration is mentioned.

Imagine for a moment that British citizens would like lower immigration overall–for example, because they wanted to remain a distinct people. Then, imagine that the government thought of itself as the representative of British citizens, with duties to them as a group, from where it derived its legitimacy and authority.

Hilarious idea, no?

Even the slightest, most marginal polices aimed at lower immigration meet with this sort of response: “Whatever you want to do about isn’t possible because [given any reason you can think of].” Here we earn that other prospective students might be enraged that Britain actually has an immigration policy, and vow never to study hear all, crashing our economy, and with it, the EZ, thus immanentizing the eschaton. On the other hand, I’m reliably informed that the world ends on 20th December, this year, so despite Cameron’s reckless commitment to less than totally open borders, the whole thing might turn out to be moot after all.

55. Chaise Guevara

@ 51 damon

“Chaise, stop being a drama queen. You have chosen not to engage with the facts.”

I have chosen not to engage with “facts” that you have invented and can’t source, beyond pointing out that they’re not really facts. As for “drama queen”, excuse me, but which of us squeals “elitist!” every time we’re faced with a view we dislike?

Grow up and stop projecting your failings onto the rest of us.

56. Chaise Guevara

@ 54 vimothy

“Ah, here we are again–liberals come over all libertarian as soon as immigration is mentioned.”

Hold on. Why are you presenting this as if it’s out of character or hypocritical? One form of liberalism (i.e. that of me and many people who frequent this site) is basically libertarian on the social scale and socialist on the economic scale. Pro-gay-rights, anti-drug-prohibition etc. As this is really a social issue – allowing people to live where they wish – there’s no contradiction there.

As for us objecting to attempts to ensure the British are a “distinct people” – that’s not so much “libertarian” as “opposition to poorly concealed xenophobia” (which in fairness a libertarian would probably join us in opposing).

Imagine for a moment that British citizens would like lower immigration overall–for example, because they wanted to remain a distinct people. Then, imagine that the government thought of itself as the representative of British citizens, with duties to them as a group, from where it derived its legitimacy and authority.

The problem is, sentence 2 doesn’t imply that the government should do every last thing the populace happens to say they like in opinion polls.

Indeed, the government’s duties arguably include saving the people from the consequences of their ill-informed and inconsistent preferences (the average person wants to see lower taxes and higher spending; a government based on listening to the average person rather than filtering their message would end up as bust as California).

Providing education to foreign students makes shedloads of money for the UK, and does negligible harm (the foreign students aren’t the illiterate ones or the ones claiming benefits, they’re quite the opposite). It confers no rights to citizenship or even residency. In other words, it doesn’t dilute “British culture” or take away “British jobs”, even if you view those as considerations. Opposing it is only possible if one is a bigot.

(and no, it doesn’t really matter that some people’s credentials are dodgy. As long as they’re on the course, capable of staying on the course without being failed and thrown out, and stumping up the cheques, why the blazes would anyone care in the slightest?)

You do make me laugh Chaise Guevara. When I talked of ”facts” I am only talking about the facts that the levels of fraud and corruption in places like Pakistan and Nigeria are at extremely high levels. Have you seen the case of James Ibori – ”a former Wickes cashier who became governor of an oil-rich Nigerian state was part of a scam which plundered £157million from some of the poorest people in the world.”.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130593/James-Ibori-Wickes-cashier-governor-oil-rich-Nigerian-state-scam.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
There was a Newsnight piece on him last night. He’s appearing at Southwark Crown Court today.

He is not untypical. Nearly all the state govoners in Nigera are up to the same kind of thing. It’s endemic. You have heard of all the various Nigerian scams I take it? Use google ffs.

But I knew you wouldn’t accept those as being called ”facts”.
The long and the short of it is that the government wants to clamp down of visa fraud and bogus colleges…. which is fair enough.

They also want to ”raise the bar on” who should be able to come to the UK as students, and they say they only want the ”brightest and the best”. If you want to take issue with that aspect of what the government wants to do, then I might agree with you.
That they only want the richest and brightest of Pakistanis is perhaps unethical, as we are saying we don’t want there poor but aspirational.
In a country with and average per capita GDP of $3,000, you might still wonder where the money is coming from. I really don’t know. Perhaps poorer people are borrowing it all in advance.

As our population is growing at a rate of 250,000 a year, it’s the government’s job to do something about it.
There was a radio report yesterday about the number of houses being built and planned for in the Ashford area of Kent. Up to ten thousand houses – and they were concerned that there wasn’t enough water even, before you get to other issues about the built environment. Population pressure. Where did all these new people in who want to live in Kent come from? London overspill is probably some of it. The Home Counties will have to become ex-urbs like they have in the USA. The suburbs beyond traditional suburbs which sprawl out from older cities.
Which might actually not be such a bad thing. Empty fields are very overrated.
I wouldn’t think it was a bad idea to let even more people from stressed and failing countries to come to the UK, and for us to build a whole new society here.
It would be the humane thing to do. And quite exciting too.

59. Chaise Guevara

@ damon

“You do make me laugh Chaise Guevara. When I talked of ”facts” I am only talking about the facts that the levels of fraud and corruption in places like Pakistan and Nigeria are at extremely high levels. ”

Ah, I thought you mean the made-up facts you’ve been touting the whole time about thousands of south Asian students being bedsit-dwelling criminals. You know, the ones I’ve actually been refusing to “engage with”, for the same reason I see no need to explain the existence of unicorns. But no, I’m not following you down the rabbit hole given that you still refuse to source your original claims. I’ve no interest in playing along with a Gish Gallop. I’m sure you find that hilarious.

Hmm. Someone deliberately being disingenuous on the internet, because he thinks the reaction it provokes is funny. There’s a popular term for that… ogre? hobgoblin? It’ll come to me.

60. Chaise Guevara

@ damon

Just to clarify, your post @ 58 is irrelevant. You’re arguing with me on points that I’ve never disputed or even discussed on this thread. I can only assume this is a face-saving tactic, where you try to pretend we were talking about something else so you can “win” the conversation. Moving the goalposts, in other words. Meanwhile, I’m STILL waiting for a source showing that thousands of students etc etc. It’s rather odd – if you’re so confident that it’s true, surely you must have one or more convincing sources? Otherwise, why so confident?

The sad thing is, if you’d either provided a source or admitted your claims were unsubstantiated when first asked (back when the world was young, it now seems), we could have avoided all this nonsense.

CG – first of all I’m nor trying to ”win” any argument. I know that’s impossible on internet sites such as these.
On the substantive point – I don’t know where you live or what your experience is ….. but do you know London and it’s immigartion first-port-of-call hotspots?
From West Croydon to Tottenham, and from Ealing to Newham. If you know these places you will know that ”bedsit-land” and the number of ‘houses of multiple occupation’ has grown and grown.

Just google words like ”illegal immigrants London” and stop being so coy.
Personally I’m with Boris Johnson, and I’d say that there should be an amnesty …. and don’t agree with the kind of operation shown in this youtube, where the UK Border Force go trawling at busy railway stations picking out members of the public.
But the first one they get – from Pakistan with no visa – is asked where he lives and he answers ”above a kebab shop in Green Street” (East Ham).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chQVBpA3g68

Which is actually the ”perfect” answer.
How many more people are doing what that guy was doing do you think? All the guys working in those Kebab and chicken shops. Some are legal, some are not. Even some of the legal ones will have told lies. Or are you going to demand that I prove that too Chaise? The asylum situation in the UK was practically brought down because people felt they had to lie to be able to stay in the UK. Even about their nationality.

Or their ages.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/30/uk-border-agency-x-rays-asylum-seekers

Btw, I went to see this French film ”Le Havre” last night.
About an asylum seeking boy in Le Havre who wants to join his mother in London.
It’s nice, if a bit silly.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/apr/05/le-havre-review

62. Robin Levett

@damon #51:

The guy at the university says that there are plenty of bars near the university and is questioning the need for them to be on campus. Whether I got his exact words excactly right or not is just pedantry. Have a pop at him, not me.

No; he’s questioning the need for all of them to be on campus. He’s talking about “alcohol-free zones”, not an alcohol-free campus. He’s gone too far, apparently, or so his students believe; but not as far as the Fail and you have spun it.

John,

The problem is, sentence 2 doesn’t imply that the government should do every last thing the populace happens to say they like in opinion polls.

Who here has claimed that the government should do “every last thing the populace happens to say they like”? (It’s interesting to see though how quickly the will of the people is trivialised when it is seen to disagree with the will of the liberal: when it supports you, it is sacrosanct; when it does not, meh—obviously the government doesn’t have to, like, accommodate its every idiotic grasping urge).

I suggested instead that the government has a duty to the British people. That duty is not discharged by their dissolution, but by their preservation. Similarly, a father ought not indulge all of his child’s passing whims; but that does not imply that he should refuse whatever the child desires, merely because the child desires it, or disown him because he wants to be held close.

As to the issue of the policy itself, it is clear that the intent is to screen for “bogus” students. You take as your premise the idea that these students are all intending to pay and complete their courses, and then go home again, giving us the benefit of their tuition fee payments and no downside. Only a monster and a bigot could object.

In what sense then are the students bogus? Your argument is question begging.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration – why it will backfire http://t.co/MT16jpbw

  2. Mike Harrison

    RT @sunny_hundal: Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration – why it will backfire http://t.co/xOtOchvw

  3. Ali B

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration – why it will backfire http://t.co/MT16jpbw

  4. Ali B

    http://t.co/lwlfEmsY via @sunny_hundal. Vital source of revenue for unis cut to appease Migration Watch fans

  5. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – Cameron’s silly new plan to limit immigration http://t.co/xoUkPUTQ

  6. Neil Courtman

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration http://t.co/WK5jKOXj

  7. Greg Eden

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration http://t.co/WK5jKOXj

  8. osamorK

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration http://t.co/WK5jKOXj

  9. Alex Burrett

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration – why it will backfire http://t.co/MT16jpbw

  10. Nancy Kelley

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration – why it will backfire http://t.co/MT16jpbw

  11. Martin James

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration – why it will backfire http://t.co/MT16jpbw

  12. g6

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration – why it will backfire http://t.co/MT16jpbw

  13. Steve K

    "@AliB68: http://t.co/6YYHTpYT via @sunny_hundal. Vital source of revenue for unis cut to appease Migration Watch fans"

  14. Tania

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration – why it will backfire http://t.co/MT16jpbw

  15. Free Movement

    RT @sunny_hundal: Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration – why it will backfire http://t.co/p7wuhpL3

  16. Rosie Warin

    Cameron's questionable new plan to limit immigration – why it could backfire http://t.co/T7GxlR58 (via @sunny_hundal )

  17. Forster

    Cameron's questionable new plan to limit immigration – why it could backfire http://t.co/CDzwiGf6 (via @sunny_hundal )

  18. Martin McQuillan

    new checks for student visas “@sunny_hundal: Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration – why it will backfire http://t.co/Rgf5aexW”

  19. Michael Moore

    Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration http://t.co/WK5jKOXj

  20. Alex Braithwaite

    Cameron’s silly new plan to limit immigration | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/c3PtEt8v via @libcon

  21. Skipton & Ripon CLP

    Cameron’s silly new plan to limit immigration | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/c3PtEt8v via @libcon

  22. David Cameroon

    On WebCameroon Direct: My great new plan to capture some headlines on immigration: http://t.co/34qL7sEy /via @libcon

  23. Al

    “@MailOnline:Students from Pakistan face tough tests to enter UK http://t.co/rgOkv1sx” to be read with http://t.co/TZuUgwhJ #UKimmigration

  24. BevR

    Cameron’s silly new plan to limit immigration | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/1vMh8Ka8 via @libcon

  25. Juli

    Cameron’s silly new plan to limit immigration | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/KnCvBKTY via @libcon

  26. liane gomersall

    Cameron’s silly new plan to limit immigration | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/aZ5qW4E2 via @libcon

  27. Gary Callsen

    http://t.co/z9SpiTSk Cameron's silly new plan to limit immigration | Liberal Conspiracy





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.