Before you permanently move to the US

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Its officially law now?

The new immigration rules are not law. They are policy. But very official policy and it will probably take court decisions to turn them around.

I did the test on the Guardian web site, all the questions I asked fell into the Pub Quiz level of general knowledge.

The new test?

[Captain Oates 911]

I did the test on the Guardian web site, all the questions I asked fell into the Pub Quiz level of general knowledge.

Q Which pub did Oliver Cromwell's army drink dry the night before the battle of Marston Moor in the English civil war ?

A The black bull in Otley

Edited July 10, 2012 by Ashud Cocoa

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Twitter feed with photos from today's demonstration in London outside the Home Office, and subsequent meeting with MP's in the Grand Committee Room.

https://twitter.com/migrants_rights

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

http://www.londonelegance.com/transpondia/measure-twice-cut-once-primer-do-it-yourself-immigration

[Holly2234 66]

http://www.londonelegance.com/transpondia/measure-twice-cut-once-primer-do-it-yourself-immigration

Thats brilliant! All very true and gives a reality check to those who might require it!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blog/2012/07/family-migration-lobby-parliament-brief

Some excerpts:

" Virendra Sharma MP showed that the new rules area clear divisor between the rich and the poor. They suggest that we want the rich to bring their families, but if you are poor, low paid or young, then you have no right to have that family life. He pledged his support to any campaigns or statements by MRN and JCWI to fight against the inhumane treatment.

Jeremy Corbyn MP stated that “This country needs to grow up and realize how much we depend on migration here to create the standard of living we rely on.” He claimed that prejudice makes these rules, which disregard the law of Article 8 and are“unbelievably nasty” in every way. He showed that the rules are based on prejudice, inoperable in many ways and will probably be legally challenged at various stages and he questioned why the official Labour position has not taken this up in its totality.

Habib Rahman (JCWI) called this day a “dark day” of undermining people’s fundamental basic rights, and mainly the rights of the Black and Asian communities. He highlighted the role of civil society in rising and standing up against these rules."

Edited July 11, 2012 by Rebecca Jo

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Habib Rahman (JCWI) called this day a “dark day” of undermining people’s fundamental basic rights, and mainly the rights of the Black and Asian communities. He highlighted the role of civil society in rising and standing up against these rules."

Although I get what they are saying, I really dislike the emphasis on the "rights of Black and Asian communities." This hurts not rich but not struggling white people in equal measure.

[Captain Oates 911]

Although I get what they are saying, I really dislike the emphasis on the "rights of Black and Asian communities." This hurts not rich but not struggling white people in equal measure.

Absolutely - if anything the law hits the 'native' population more, because they were not the target in the first place and are collateral damage.

They are suffering with the black and Asian population and sharing their load and taking the consequences for a situation that they were not the authors of

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Although I get what they are saying, I really dislike the emphasis on the "rights of Black and Asian communities." This hurts not rich but not struggling white people in equal measure.

I kind of dislike it also, but they are just mustering the troops. I think it's somewhere in this thread how the Coalition was backed into a corner on the income limit by suggesting anything over £18600 could be viewed as racist. (I've read somewhere in my research that May actually wanted a threshold of £40,000). So, some MP's are just looking for ugly words to describe the rules because they are political hot-buttons.

[rocks 494]

I kind of dislike it also, but they are just mustering the troops. I think it's somewhere in this thread how the Coalition was backed into a corner on the income limit by suggesting anything over £18600 could be viewed as racist. (I've read somewhere in my research that May actually wanted a threshold of £40,000). So, some MP's are just looking for ugly words to describe the rules because they are political hot-buttons.

£40,000?

This woman is delusional!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bring-in-migrants-to-cut-billions-from-deficit-says-osbornes-watchdog-7939667.html

"Higher levels of immigration over the next 50 years would spare taxpayers from the need to endure much greater austerity, the Government's fiscal watchdog has said."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18826606

"The Home Office has rejected claims by the government's financial watchdog that higher immigration levels could cut billions from Britain's deficit."

[Captain Oates 911]

Between the 1890's and 1950's, the US took in so many immigrants that 100 million americans can trace their roots back to them. A huge number were ragged and almost penniless. Didn't seem to do the US any harm economically

[Boiler 45,753]

And since 1950?

Times change.

[Captain Oates 911]

And since 1950?

Times change.

Exactly - the economy moves in inverse proportion to immigration ...

They are a pool of cheap labor and that improves the competitiveness of the economy

The British Government tried really hard to import Pakistani labor in the 1960's while the mills were open

Now it is oriental nurses and Indian doctors

The demand is always changing

They are always poor at first

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

And since 1950?

Times change.

Not really. The only thing that changes is the immigrant feeder-country that gets hated on.