Enemies Of The State...

Immigration judges granted a convicted child sex offender the right to enter Britain after ruling that barring him would breach his human rights. The latest shocking example of a ‘deeply perverse’ ruling from the immigration courts involves Jamaican paedophile Oniel Spence, who was jailed in the United States for a sexual offence against a 15-year-old girl.

It really shouldn’t surprise me anymore, the depths of depravity of British judges seems fully equal to that of Yank paedophiles...

Details of the case are revealed by the Daily Mail for the first time today after Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp this week blasted judges’ ‘tyranny’ over the immigration system.

It’s nice to see a Tory speaking out about this, though one wonders why he didn’t speak before when his party was in a position to do something about it. 

Spence, now 43, applied to come to the UK in 2023 to join his wife and child - who are both British nationals - but was blocked by the Home Office. Officials barred his application on the grounds his exclusion was ‘conducive to the public good’. The paedophile then lodged an appeal at the lower immigration tribunal and won permission to come here from immigration judge Jonathan Greer.

It’s nice to see that they’re naming the judges, and I would hope that people in a position to provide services and goods to them take note of this 

His lawyers argued preventing him from entering Britain had breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which covers the right to ‘private and family life’. The Home Secretary at the time, Yvette Cooper, appealed to the upper immigration tribunal against the decision. But judges Madeleine Reeds and Nathan Moxon refused her arguments.

Did no one point out that there was nothing stopping them from going to him to resolve this? 

Current Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood then brought a further case at the Court of Appeal.Earlier this month senior judges overturned the original decision, describing it as ‘perverse’, and ordered the case to be re-heard by the first-tier tribunal.A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We will do everything in our power to continue contesting this case.'

Well, why not? It’s just taxpayers money after all. 

Who’s Driving Our Tubes?

As many as 300 London Underground staff are at risk of being deported after changes to immigration rules, it is feared.

And the Union is furious. No, Reader, not at the fact that these immigrants have taken jobs from British workers, of course not! 

More than 100 union activists, led by Mr Dempsey, mounted a protest outside the Home Office on Wednesday morning. MPs John McDonnell and Zarah Sultana also attended the demonstration, while Diane Abbott tweeted her support.

All the usual suspect, of course!  

Mr Dempsey told the protesters: “This is a really serious situation. We have got members working for Transport for London who are facing deportation in a few short weeks’ time.

”On Wednesday, Mr Dempsey accused the former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, of making a “knee-jerk decision” toughening the rules on how long foreign-born workers can remain in the UK, in response to growing political pressure from Nigel Farage’s Reform party over rising immigration levels.

It does seem an answer to the questions of why so many Tube announcements are unintelligible, and why so little is ever done to prevent foreign fare dodgers from jumping the barriers - a significant proportion of the workers on the system are themdselves foreign!   

But what has caused this sudden change?

The new rules increased salary thresholds for visa sponsorship to £41,700 a year for new applicants and removed key transport roles, including station assistant, from the “skilled worker” list - meaning it is harder for some foreign workers to remain in the UK.

Many TfL station staff began their employment on the London Underground on two-year graduate visa schemes believing they could move into skilled worker positions.He said: “Our members were employed with the full expectation that they would become full British citizens and would be staying here. They have brought their families, and bought their homes here. Now they could be forced to leave.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind. 

“This is unfair. We are not for open borders. We are for a fair migration policy – one that is humane and fair and treats people properly. This doesn’t meet that test.

“So what we are calling for, as a bare minimum, is that this should be paused until the Migration Advisory Committee can finish its work. There should be transitional arrangements put in place.”

Good luck arguing that in this political and financial climate! 

Many Germans Have Indeed Asked Themselves That Question, Bonita

I live in a small, quaint old town in north-west Germany, and every day I attend four hours of German and integration lessons. I attend because I am an immigrant: I am South African, and moved to Germany three months ago, along with my German husband and our children.

OK. And..? 

I learn alongside refugees, mainly from Syria and Ukraine, as well as other “regular immigrants” like me, from non-EU countries (the federal government covers the course fees for jobseekers, asylum seekers, and refugees, (Ed: pretty sure it's the German taxpayer that cover it...) while immigrants from non-EU countries must pay). Failure to pass the language test or complete the integration course can result in difficulties in extending temporary residence permits, obtaining permanent residency or German citizenship, and in some cases, can have financial consequences, such as fines or a reduction in social benefits.

Are you worried you won't pass then? 

Our headmistress recently told our class: “Racism is everywhere and Germans are racist, too. If someone hears you’ve been here for nine years and you still haven’t learned the language, you have no chance!”

Which is quite right, too. Why are you throwing a hissy fit about it? 

Policing all land borders will come with racial profiling and potential human rights violations. How does this sit with German values and culture, which include a strong commitment to human rights, justice and solidarity? Can the German government truly not find more effective ways to harness the country’s collective knowledge and expertise to address the root causes of irregular immigration? To agree on a European solution rather than turning desperate people away?

'Irregular immigration' - is that a euphremism?