Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Should we let them all in?
Following WWII many commonwealth soldiers and their families would like to come to Britain, retire and draw government pensions but are prevented from doing so. If the law was changed to allow this it would involve many �millions, would be a drain on our state and finances as well as a burden on our health services.
This has a strong link to allowing all Gurkas to be accepted. The law will not discriminate between the two and allowing only the good guys to come in whilst refusing others. Doesn't Phil Woolas the immigration minister have a point?
This has a strong link to allowing all Gurkas to be accepted. The law will not discriminate between the two and allowing only the good guys to come in whilst refusing others. Doesn't Phil Woolas the immigration minister have a point?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Anybody who served in WW11 would be at least 80 years old now. I don't think there would be many octogenarians wanting to come and make a new life in the UK.
The Gurkhas are a different matter. We let half the world come here. Why should we refuse men who have put their lives on the line for our country when people who seem to hate all we believe in come flooding into our country?
The Gurkhas are a different matter. We let half the world come here. Why should we refuse men who have put their lives on the line for our country when people who seem to hate all we believe in come flooding into our country?
have there actually been many forigners in the British army apart from Gurkhas? I believe there are some Fijians too, but I don't know of many others. Anyway, yes, if you've risked your life in British service I think a residency permit would be an appropriate reward. The country has plenty of locally-born idlers who'd never dream of joining the army even if Germany attacked (there were plenty like that in WW2, believe it or not). So better Gurkhas than shirkers!
-- answer removed --
Yes, jake, you'll be surprised to hear that I totally agree with you.
This country seems to operate a �no holds barred� policy in almost every respect when it comes to immigration. The only exceptions seem to be when people who may have something to offer, or already have offered their services, try to settle here legally. Obstacles are put in their way and statistics concerning the potential costs (real or imagined) are trotted out with monotonous regularity.
The same arguments are not used to deter others who may be of less value to the society they crave to join. Criminals are allowed to settle here, commit further crimes, and still remain here. Terrorists arrive here on an aircraft they have hijacked. They are allowed to remain (despite the then Home Secretary�s assertion that they would be removed forthwith. People openly hostile to this country, its traditions and cultures, are allowed to settle here and spout their venom. Those whom the authorities do order to leave are granted huge amounts of Legal Aid to fight their case through the courts and eventually are given "exceptional leave" to remain. (Quite what is "exceptional" about it is anybody's guess. It is exceptional if any of them are thrown out).
Nobody knows how many of these people there are already here, or how many potentially queuing up to get in are likely to arrive here. No estimate is put on the potential costs of such an influx.
A (relatively) small number of ex-servicemen want to settle here. Immediately the precise number of potential newcomers is known. Even more immediately outrageously exaggerated forecasts of the potential costs are trotted out.
It is hypocrisy of the first order and the ex-servicemen and the people of this country deserve better.
This country seems to operate a �no holds barred� policy in almost every respect when it comes to immigration. The only exceptions seem to be when people who may have something to offer, or already have offered their services, try to settle here legally. Obstacles are put in their way and statistics concerning the potential costs (real or imagined) are trotted out with monotonous regularity.
The same arguments are not used to deter others who may be of less value to the society they crave to join. Criminals are allowed to settle here, commit further crimes, and still remain here. Terrorists arrive here on an aircraft they have hijacked. They are allowed to remain (despite the then Home Secretary�s assertion that they would be removed forthwith. People openly hostile to this country, its traditions and cultures, are allowed to settle here and spout their venom. Those whom the authorities do order to leave are granted huge amounts of Legal Aid to fight their case through the courts and eventually are given "exceptional leave" to remain. (Quite what is "exceptional" about it is anybody's guess. It is exceptional if any of them are thrown out).
Nobody knows how many of these people there are already here, or how many potentially queuing up to get in are likely to arrive here. No estimate is put on the potential costs of such an influx.
A (relatively) small number of ex-servicemen want to settle here. Immediately the precise number of potential newcomers is known. Even more immediately outrageously exaggerated forecasts of the potential costs are trotted out.
It is hypocrisy of the first order and the ex-servicemen and the people of this country deserve better.
jake-the-peg
I can go along with that, but on the condition that they are self supportive.
But how some will be able to buy or rent a house, I just do not know.
But buy or rent one they must, because housing is at a premium in Britain, and if there is any free housing available our own retiring troops should have the first offer.
I can go along with that, but on the condition that they are self supportive.
But how some will be able to buy or rent a house, I just do not know.
But buy or rent one they must, because housing is at a premium in Britain, and if there is any free housing available our own retiring troops should have the first offer.
This needs to be put into perspective:
Do we really believe that the entire population of Nepal (approx. 22 million) would be applying for Brit citizenship because of the fact that a minority of them are in our armed forces? Of course not. The vast majority would obviously not even qualify.
I'm convinced that the numbers would be in the low thousands, far less than the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants / bogus asylum seekers who have been admitted to our country for who knows how long. And what have their entry qualifications amounted to? Plus, how many of those are still at large in our country being "a drain on our state and finances as well as a burden on our health services."
Getting our priorities right and shedding the dross would alleviate the situation and clear the decks for genuine cases such as the Gurkhas. And there would be far fewer of them than the parasites presently sucking our country dry.
Do we really believe that the entire population of Nepal (approx. 22 million) would be applying for Brit citizenship because of the fact that a minority of them are in our armed forces? Of course not. The vast majority would obviously not even qualify.
I'm convinced that the numbers would be in the low thousands, far less than the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants / bogus asylum seekers who have been admitted to our country for who knows how long. And what have their entry qualifications amounted to? Plus, how many of those are still at large in our country being "a drain on our state and finances as well as a burden on our health services."
Getting our priorities right and shedding the dross would alleviate the situation and clear the decks for genuine cases such as the Gurkhas. And there would be far fewer of them than the parasites presently sucking our country dry.
Infuydibilium the link was todays Radio 4 breakfast time where they had Phil Woolas and Lumley answering questions about the Gurkhas. He put forward this problem of allowing them in by changing the law to do so. Phil must have all the figures and he seemed very concerned what would happen. Do we really want to print a blank cheque without knowing the consequences?
-- answer removed --
I refer you to part of my answer to this question about Ghurkhas posted last Thursday week.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question74 8661.html
"..... this is yet another tip of another iceberg. It isn't just the soldiers - its families and extended others etc. etc.
Commonwealth soldiers may well be able to stay here after 4 years - its in their employment contract (as it is with the employment contracts of post-1997 Ghurkhas). It wasn't in the employment contracts of pre-1997 Ghurkhas.
Mark my words, this is the thin end of the wedge. The next campaign will be for Iraqi and Afghanistani interpreters to stay here - they also put their lives on the line to work for us - and are paid incredibly well for the dangers.
Then let's extend the campaign to local workers in UK embassies wordwide - and their families. What's the difference? - they are local workers employed by HM Government - as the Ghurkhas were in Hong Kong."
Phil Woolas understands the point exactly but no politician is going to stand up and say what I am saying in my last 2 paragraphs. This is the thin end of the wedge, and there are a whole host of foreign nationals who 'work' for HM Forces when they are doing the business out in the big wide world.
In my first reply I highlighted Iraqi intepretators. That's just one group that work for HMG but who are not in uniform. Out in Helmand, how do you think the support 'machinery' of soldiering works? - by hundreds of local and other nationals working for the UK, some directly, some through third-party contractors. Some take great risks - the interpretators, for example. Several fuel truck drivers have been killed during attacks on convoys. What you thought we did this stuff ourselves/ - not likely - we use foreign nationals.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question74 8661.html
"..... this is yet another tip of another iceberg. It isn't just the soldiers - its families and extended others etc. etc.
Commonwealth soldiers may well be able to stay here after 4 years - its in their employment contract (as it is with the employment contracts of post-1997 Ghurkhas). It wasn't in the employment contracts of pre-1997 Ghurkhas.
Mark my words, this is the thin end of the wedge. The next campaign will be for Iraqi and Afghanistani interpreters to stay here - they also put their lives on the line to work for us - and are paid incredibly well for the dangers.
Then let's extend the campaign to local workers in UK embassies wordwide - and their families. What's the difference? - they are local workers employed by HM Government - as the Ghurkhas were in Hong Kong."
Phil Woolas understands the point exactly but no politician is going to stand up and say what I am saying in my last 2 paragraphs. This is the thin end of the wedge, and there are a whole host of foreign nationals who 'work' for HM Forces when they are doing the business out in the big wide world.
In my first reply I highlighted Iraqi intepretators. That's just one group that work for HMG but who are not in uniform. Out in Helmand, how do you think the support 'machinery' of soldiering works? - by hundreds of local and other nationals working for the UK, some directly, some through third-party contractors. Some take great risks - the interpretators, for example. Several fuel truck drivers have been killed during attacks on convoys. What you thought we did this stuff ourselves/ - not likely - we use foreign nationals.
Part 2
Anyone who thinks such people won't also try and leap on the gravy-train wnats their head examining. The thick British press who are ever quick to shout loudly about Gurkha injustices will be the first to criticise when yet more foreign nationals want refuge here. Each and every time this country makes up another special case, people desperate to stay here will try and leap through the same crack.
The government has completely fouled up the communication of the Ghurkha issue - failing to point out it only applies to pre-1997 contracted Ghurkhas anyway - many whom will have retired by now anyway - so aren't in Helmand anyway. Either they don't have any relevant data, or they are incapable of producing such data that would show which Ghurkhas have been on active service in recent campaigns and who would be excluded from settlement.
What I predict will now happen is a specific piece of tight (hopefully) legislation will be passed, to allow these Ghurkhas in. That's what Phil Woolas is now signalling to us.
The Government recognises it has lost this cause through poor management of it.
Anyone who thinks such people won't also try and leap on the gravy-train wnats their head examining. The thick British press who are ever quick to shout loudly about Gurkha injustices will be the first to criticise when yet more foreign nationals want refuge here. Each and every time this country makes up another special case, people desperate to stay here will try and leap through the same crack.
The government has completely fouled up the communication of the Ghurkha issue - failing to point out it only applies to pre-1997 contracted Ghurkhas anyway - many whom will have retired by now anyway - so aren't in Helmand anyway. Either they don't have any relevant data, or they are incapable of producing such data that would show which Ghurkhas have been on active service in recent campaigns and who would be excluded from settlement.
What I predict will now happen is a specific piece of tight (hopefully) legislation will be passed, to allow these Ghurkhas in. That's what Phil Woolas is now signalling to us.
The Government recognises it has lost this cause through poor management of it.
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
ChatterBank58 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
ChatterBank69 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
