Most migrants to Britain on a marriage visa have never visited the UK
Two-thirds of immigrants who come to Britain on a marriage visa have never before set foot in this country, it has emerged. Every year some 40,000 migrants enter the country either to marry or to join an existing spouse – bringing with them another 9,000 children and other dependants.
An examination of Home Office files from 2009 revealed 67 per cent were coming here for the first time.
The research will raise concerns that many of those coming here to marry or to join partners have little knowledge and understanding of British culture.
It will be published today as Immigration Minister Damian Green calls for support for Government plans to prevent family visas being used to bypass immigration laws. In a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, he will tell anyone attempting sham marriages or coming here to live off benefits that they are not welcome.
Mr Green will say: ‘These are sensitive issues which have been ignored for far too long but ones we are determined to tackle. ‘We want a system that lets everyone know where they stand and what their responsibilities are. ‘If your marriage is not genuine, if you have no interest in this country and its way of life, if you are coming here to live off benefits, don’t come in the first place.
‘That is why our focus is on delivering better family migration – better for migrants, for communities and for the UK as a whole.’
The research shows that around eight out of ten of those who arrived on family visas from Pakistani and Bangladesh in 2004 had settled here permanently within five years. That compares to just one in ten family migrants arriving from Australia.
Worryingly, one in five of those sponsoring marriage visas were either unemployed or was earning less than the minimum wage, the research found. One in three was living with family members or friends and not supporting themselves financially.
Last night Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: ‘A surprisingly high proportion of those granted marriage visas appear to be total newcomers to Britain. ‘An inflow of this kind can only add to continuing problems of integrating very large numbers of foreign migrants into our society.’
Mr Green will also condemn the abuse of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to a private and family life – by foreign criminals to stay in the country. A series of outrageous rulings have allowed serious offenders to remain here despite breaking the law repeatedly.
Official figures show more than half the offenders who win their appeals do so using Article 8. Of the 162 cases lost by the Home Office in the last three months of last year, 99 were based on family life rulings.
Ministers are set to radically overhaul family immigration rules in coming months, including tough income tests for sponsors who want to bring in their partner. They will have to show they have the means to support both their partner and any children or other dependent relatives.
New powers will be given to register offices to refuse to marry people or insist on a delay if it is feared the marriage is not genuine, and tough new ‘Mr and Mrs’ style tests brought in to guard against sham marriages.
Spouses and partners would have to wait five years, rather than the current two, before they could apply to settle in the UK permanently, and the same period before they can claim benefits.
Ministers also want to rein in Article 8 by making it explicit in immigration rules what weight should be given to family rights.
SOURCE
Australian conservatives offer to help Leftist government with new immigration laws as long as civility over the matter is extended
That seems a fair offer -- but is a Leftist capable of civility in politics?
TONY Abbott is demanding Prime Minister Julia Gillard personally say "please" if the Government wants Opposition support for off-shore processing of asylum seekers.
The Opposition Leader is fed up with what he sees as "bile" from Ms Gillard and a lack of information from the Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, sources told news.com.au today.
And he's furious that last week Mr Bowen's office briefed reporters on what Mr Abbott was to have been briefed on later that day.
At hand is legislation the Government will introduce next week to amend the Migration Act to get around a High Court ruling which wrecked the Malaysian deal to swap asylum seekers for refugees, and put in serious doubt all off-shore processing of boat people.
The Opposition hasn't declared where it stands on the issue, but Mr Abbott is likely to back it to ensure a future Coalition government could send asylum seekers to third countries such as Nauru.
Any agreement would come with heavy criticism of the Malaysian solution, which would be reflected in proposed Opposition amendments.
However, Mr Abbott won't reveal his plans to the Government until he gets what he considers a full briefing on the legislation, and a personal appeal for support from the PM.
He'll receive a briefing on the bills in Melbourne at 5pm tomorrow and today Opposition sources said it must include all the legal advice the Government received following the High Court ruling.
"We've asked for it and haven't even had a 'thank you for writing' letter in reply," said one Liberal source.
Earlier this week, Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott clashed over the table during Question time with the Opposition Leader complaining, "I get nothing but bile from you, Julia".
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment