miss_s_b: (Mood: Liberal)
[personal profile] miss_s_b
This one being my partner, [personal profile] magister, who used to work in immigration and was so incensed by Nick's speech last week that he resigned from the party. He posted about his reasons for doing so here, and he has just texted me to tell me that he has received confirmation of cancellation.

After Shirley Williams on the NHS, after Julian Huppert drank the home office kool aid on DRIP, after secret courts, after this, I really am genuinely wondering if Clegg is systematically going for properly pissing off what remaining pockets of support we have left in a perverse attempt to see how low we can go.

Still waiting for Greg Mullholland to tell me pubcos aren't all that bad, or Lynne to go all patriarchal, mind. If either of those happen, it'll be ME sending my card back in pieces.

Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 06:16 pm (UTC)
hollymath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] hollymath
Even though I spent all afternoon doing (LGBT+) Lib Dem stuff, I couldn't think of anything to say to this news apart from "Good". I'm hardly a single-issue (non-)voter, but the one thing I distinctly remember checking before deciding to sign up to the Lib Dems was that they were the pro-immigration party. I didn't see how it made any sense for me to be part of one that wasn't.

I don't think it makes any sense now either. There's nothing in [personal profile] magister's reasoning I can disagree with, but I just don't have the energy to devote to thinking what to do about this right now: I'm busy paying money I don't have to fly back to help care for my ill mother -- the glamorous life of an immigrant, eh?

Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 06:31 pm (UTC)
hollymath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] hollymath
Entry and exit checks will also keep genealogists of the future happy, I note, having talked with a friend who dabbles in it yesterday :) I think if you didn't have any border checks you'd have to have censuses more often, or something, for infrastructure.

Yeah I know all the actual Lib Dems I know are pretty good on the subject, which is some consolation, but if the policies and the laws aren't, even when the Lib Dems have a hand in them, there's a limit to how comforting I can find that because I have to live under those laws.

(And thank you for snuggles. They help.)
Edited Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 06:32 pm (UTC)

Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 06:40 pm (UTC)
hollymath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] hollymath
I don't want you to think it's your job to comfort me, so don't worry if it's not easy to do.

And looking after Andrew always helps loads. Thank you.

Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 06:42 pm (UTC)
ext_51145: (Default)
From: [identity profile] andrewhickey.info
The policies, while still far from ideal, are the least immigrant-unfriendly of any party I know of, sadly (and *all* the discussion around them at conference was about how pro-immigration we are). We just have to keep pushing that Overton window a little further, and fight those in our party who would compromise our principles in the name of centrism and triangulation.
If taking away interpreters had been party policy, I would have quit the party. As it is, it's Nick Clegg's policy, and it's him, not the party, to blame. I avoided saying anything public against Clegg up until then, because of loyalty to the party, but if he pushes for evil stuff like that that isn't party policy and that is his own idea, not something he had to do as a compromise with the Tories, then he's got no business calling himself a liberal and I want no part of him.

Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 06:43 pm (UTC)
ext_51145: (Default)
From: [identity profile] andrewhickey.info
(And just to confirm that we're still the pro-immigrant party, we're still the only party that explicitly want a net increase in immigration).

Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 07:54 am (UTC)
ext_390810: (Default)
From: [identity profile] http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/
Well, I'm with you on the entry and exit checks, and I once got called a racist at an NUS conference for saying some border checks - to be able to notice that the mass murderer the French police are pursuing has just entered the country, for instance - are currently necessary. That's not to say they're always necessary, but to get round those issues you need some supra-national organisations that can operate across those boundaries.

But there are too many at HQ who are so spooked by the bashing we got over being pro-immigration at the last election that they want to run away from that position and pretend we're just like the others.

Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 09:55 am (UTC)
ext_51145: (Default)
From: [identity profile] andrewhickey.info
Because "being just like the others" is really doing wonders for our electability right now. Fuckwits.

Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 04:05 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I think we should have entry and exit checks. That's it. No actual restrictions, just check who's coming in and going out so we can keep track of where infrastructure needs to be strengthened

What, no restrictions? Not even criminal record checks, or checks on whether somebody is likely to cause public disorder, breaches of the peace, etc?

That seems quite extreme.

Date: Monday, August 18th, 2014 04:09 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
For instance you might think that checking who someone is would involve a criminal records check, and strengthening of infrastructure might include appropriate responses to people who have criminal records

Well no that's fairly clear.

But you would never think that there might ever be a case where the 'appropriate response' would be 'don't let them in'?

You would really say that everyone should be let in, no matter what they have done, and then if necessary extra money should be spent on policing in the area where they settle in order to make sure they don't cause trouble?

Is there a level of extra spending required where you might say that actually this particular individual would cost more to accommodate than they are ever likely to contribute, so it is unfair to expect the current residents to pay for this person who would be a net drain on the country?

I can see operating with a presumption that everybody who wants to be let in should be let in (though I wouldn't agree with it myself: I don't think I, for example, have any 'right' to go and live in, say, the US, just because the whim takes me, so I think it would be fair enough for the US, should I wish to live there, to require me to prove that my presence would be of a benefit to them, and therefore the reverse is true of Americans wishing to move to the UK), but to say that there are no circumstances where that presumption could be rebutted (apart presumably from actual wanted criminals from countries with whom we have extradition treaties, I assume you're fine with sending them to stand trial) is, as I wrote, quite extreme.

Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 07:13 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] magister
From my time in immigration, I am very much in favour of exit controls, simply because I spent every day face to face with the fact that we had no bloody idea how many people were in the country. Exit checks and being able to mark off people who had left the country would have meant a vast amount of time saved which could be devoted to something useful.

The other thing we should do is an amnesty with an offer of indefinite leave to remain before introducing exit controls, to encourage people who are currently in the UK to come forward and make themselves known.

I'll add one story which does actually say something good about this country. There is a man somewhere in the North of England who reports daily to his local police station. He is wanted in another country for bombing a school bus. He has not been sent back there because he would be put to death and we are a signatory to the ECHR which says that we do not send people to countries where they face the death penalty. He's guilty and what he did is horrific, but I would still rather live in a country in which the human rights of even someone as heinous as him are protected.

It's just a shame that the same high standards are not applied in so many other cases.
Edited Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 07:13 pm (UTC)

About This Blog

Hello! I'm Jennie (known to many as SB, due to my handle, or The Yorksher Gob because of my old blog's name). This blog is my public face; click here for a list of all the other places you can find me on t'interwebs.

Charities I support:

The Survivors' Trust - donate here
DogsTrust - donate here
CAB - donate here


Creative Commons License
Miss SB by Jennie Rigg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org.

Please note that any and all opinions expressed in this blog are subject to random change at whim my own, and not necessarily representative of my party, or any of the constituent parts thereof (except myself, obviously).

Printed by Dreamwidth Studios, Maryland USA. Promoted by Jennie Rigg, of Brighouse, West Yorkshire.

Most Popular Tags