[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Bullocks.
If you’re gonna use British words in an attempt to increase your “UK politics expert” cred, at least learn to spell them correctly.
Not that I don’t expect it from Daily Mail readers…
[/quote]
Those bloody Catholics really must have been hard on you when you were a kid Lixy, you are always trying to be the boards English teacher. They must have really been nit pickers with your infidel ass. Is that why you are like that?
Or was it a madrassa that made you like that? All that endless memorizing of the Quran. Were you constantly trying harder than everyone else in order to prove the Catholics hadn’t converted you? That is it, isn’t it.
No I didn’t learn bullocks from the Daily Mail, I learned it from my family. When I was a kid a relative had Never Mind The Bollocks Here’s The Sex Pistols. So do me a favor habibi, don’t try to school me in English if you don’t know common alternate spellings.
[quote]
Legislation had allowed people from the Empire and Commonwealth unhindered rights to enter Britain because they carried a British passport.
No. You are twisting facts again. This is as ridiculous as saying that legislation allows Brits to eat pudding.
There has never been any legislation that “allowed people from the Empire and Commonwealth unhindered rights to enter Britain”. There was an power-hungry empire that wanted to conquer the whole world and raise a British flag over it. People in the colonies were handed out British passports de facto.
A legislation was passed in the 70s to close the doors to anyone who couldn’t prove that his parents or grandparents were born in Britain. Thatcher was not in Downing Street when that happened.[/quote]
I lifted that quote straight from the BBC page that you linked to. If you think the BBC has it wrong why did you provide that link?
No I am not twisting facts. During the days of the empire the government did make it law that people living in the colonies were entitled to British passports. They did this because English families had been living in the colonies having kids and they didn’t want to strand English people somewhere like out in the middle of Africa or the Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan or Timbuktu because there were people in some of the colonies who were hostile towards the English.
They didn’t put any racial limitation on who got passports because they figured the only ones who would apply would be the descendents of people sent out as part of the empire. This loophole in the law was exploited by the labour party to in order to gain themselves new members. That is why Britain has so many council estates full of immigrants. They used to build new council flats and instead of letting poor English people move into them they would bring in immigrants from the third world and fill them while the poor English poeple had to stay where ever they were.
Thatcher came into power in 1979 that is what the BBC is reffereing to with changes were made in the seventies. The BBC is a very biased organisation they are pro labour.
In 1978 Thatcher gave an interview with Granda tv where addressed the issue of immigration. The interview propelled her to power. Here is the part where she talks about restricting imigration.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=103485
Comm
With an election in prospect and the polls pointing to a recovery in support for Labour, WORLD IN ACTION asks Margaret Thatcher, leader of the Conservative Party about immigration, unemployment, pay policy and Conservative electoral prospects�??and on future relations with Edward Heath and Enoch Powell. She is interviewed by Gordon Burns.
Burns
Mrs Thatcher, it is three years ago this week since that famous first ballot when you defeated Mr Heath in the leadership battle and that win may well face its critical test this year with every possibility of a General Election. So, in this first major interview you have given of the New Year, I would like to examine some of the issues that you will be judged on by the electorate.[fo 1]
First, immigration. Considerable controversy and confusion in recent weeks about possible new get-tough Tory policy over immigration; threats that you may well make major cutbacks on the level of immigrants allowed into this country. If you do get to power how severely would you cut the numbers?
Thatcher
Well now, look, let us try and start with a few figures as far as we know them, and I am the first to admit it is not easy to get clear figures from the Home Office about immigration, but there was a committee which looked at it and said that if we went on as we are then by the end of the century there would be four million people of the new Commonwealth or Pakistan here. Now, that is an awful lot and I think it means that people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture and, you know, the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in.[fo 2]
So, if you want good race relations, you have got to allay peoples’ fears on numbers. Now, the key to this was not what Keith Speed said just a couple of weeks ago. It really was what Willie Whitelaw said at the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton, where he said we must hold out the clear prospect of an end to immigration because at the moment it is about between 45,000 and 50,000 people coming in a year. Now, I was brought up in a small town, 25,000. That would be two new towns a year and that is quite a lot. So, we do have to hold out the prospect of an end to immigration except, of course, for compassionate cases. Therefore, we have got to look at the numbers who have a right to come in. There are a number of United Kingdom passport holders�??for example, in East Africa�??and what Keith and his committee are trying to do is to find out exactly how we are going to do it; who must come in; how you deal with the compassionate cases, but nevertheless, holding out the prospect of an end to immigration.[fo 3]
Burns
But if 45 to 50,000 per year is too many, what figure is acceptable?
Thatcher
Well, it must be very much less but you cannot decide the figure until you know those who at present have a right to come in. But what is quite clear is that we cannot go on taking in that number. You see, my great fear is now that if we get them coming in at that rate people will turn round and we shall not have good race relations with those who are here. Every one who is here must be treated equally under the law and that, I think, is why quite a lot of them too are fearful that their position might be put in jeopardy or people might be hostile to them unless we cut down the incoming numbers. They are here. They are here. They must be treated equally.
Burns
But the rules of entry are quite strict as they stand at the moment. I mean, where could cutbacks be made? Would families here be told that their dependants could no longer come? I mean where do you make the cutback?[fo 4]
Well now, we did make a very considerable cutback, as you remember, in 1971. We said that after that, and the Act took effect in 1973, everyone coming in no longer had the right to settle permanently in this country. Now that was quite a major step forward. They could come here for a job but they had not the right to settle permanently and they had not necessarily the right to bring their families for permanent settlement. Now, the interesting thing is we are in 1978 now, some of them, therefore, will have been here for five years whether they are going to be given the right to permanent settlement or not. Now, the Labour Party Conference, not last year but the year before, they voted to repeal the 1971 Act and part of the 1968 Act. We thought it was necessary to strengthen the position. What we want to know, and what the Home Office have never been able to let us know, is the numbers who, under present law, are entitled to come here. Until we know that, it is extremely difficult because when I went round India and Pakistan�??and Mr Callaghan has followed in my foot-steps�??I said to them, “You do realise[fo 5] that this country, the United Kingdom, is more densely populated than either India or Pakistan”. It is not as if we have great wide open spaces or great natural resources; we have not. So, either you go on taking in 40 or 50,000 a year, which is far too many, or you say we must hold out the prospect of a clear end to immigration and that is the view we have taken and I am certain that is the right view to keep good race relations and to keep fundamental British characteristics which have done so much for the world.
Burns
But you will then have a tough, new immigration policy should you come to power?
Thatcher
I have described what it is. How you describe what I say is a matter for you.
Burns
And it will be a major election issue as far as the Conservatives �?� .
Thatcher
I shall not make it a major election issue but I think there is a feeling that the big political parties have not been talking about this and sometimes,[fo 6] you know, we are falsely accused of racial prejudice. I say “falsely accused” and that means that we do not talk about it perhaps as much as we should. In my view, that is one thing that is driving some people to the National Front. They do not agree with the objectives of the National Front, but they say that at least they are talking about some of the problems. Now, we are a big political party. If we do not want people to go to extremes, and I do not, we ourselves must talk about this problem and we must show that we are prepared to deal with it. We are a British nation with British characteristics. Every country can take some small minorities and in many ways they add to the richness and variety of this country. The moment the minority threatens to become a big one, people get frightened.
Burns
So, some of the support that the National Front has been attracting in recent by-elections you would hope to bring back behind the Tory party?[fo 7]
Thatcher
Oh, very much back, certainly but I think that the National Front has, in fact, attracted more people from Labour voters than from us, but never be afraid to tackle something which people are worried about. We are not in politics to ignore peoples’ worries: we are in politics to deal with them.