Barred from entry to the UK

[Darat]

Darat, either you worded this a bit more harshly than intended or I may be in strong disagreement with you. I know in the US, civil rights are not exclusive to just US citizens, but to anybody subject to US authority. I assumed it was the same in the UK.

I agree that countries have to right to bar entry to 'undesirable' foreign nationals (If I am not mistaken the diplomatic term is personna non grata) but to extend that to the statement that they 'have no rights here' seems a bit excessive.

As Ian said - I was talking about people not already here. (And yes even that isn't 100% accurate since of course I recognise the basic right of refugees, for a given definition of refugee!).

 

[Travis]

Yeah, if we want to look into silly standards for limiting immigration or even visiting the country, I'm not sure the U.S. should throw rocks in its glass house.

As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world. In 2006, the number of immigrants totaled 37.5 million.

 

[Lonewulf]

That's all well and good for the modern day, but never forget.

Anti-Japanese agitation in the United States began almost with the arrival of the first Issei (first-generation Japanese Americans). Not only did reactionary politicians favor action to block Japanese immigration, but reformers also called for restrictions. Progressives talked of the "Yellow Peril" and prevailed on legislatures in western states to pass anti-Japanese laws that barred Japanese Americans from interracial marriage and excluded them from clubs, restaurants, and recreational facilities. Racial segregation greatly reduced opportunities in education, housing, and employment, and alien land laws thwarted advancement in agriculture.

http://www.answers.com/topic/japanese-american

But it's easy to point at modern legislature and call your immigration policies perfect.

 

[Travis]

And Chinese immigrants weren't allowed to be naturalized for a while too. In fact I believe that Stanford ran for governor of California on an anti-Chinese immigrant platform.

Thankfully things are different now.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world. In 2006, the number of immigrants totaled 37.5 million.

Not per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_percap-immigration-new-citizenships-per-capita

 

[WildCat]

Not per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_percap-immigration-new-citizenships-per-capita

That's just "new citizens". Throw all immigrants into the mix (including illegal ones) and see what happens.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Why would I want to add illegal immigrants in? - that wasn't what was being talked about.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

But anyway, here is total immigrant population by ttal population of country:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/i...igrant-population-immigrants-percentage-state

 

[Travis]

Not per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_percap-immigration-new-citizenships-per-capita

So what? The US is a big country and would need to have 150 million immigrants to equal Macau's (population 520,000) per capita immigrant numbers.

 

[Cuddles]

I really don't understand what the fuss is about. This isn't some weird thing the UK just thought up, it's something done by every single country in the entire world. Hell, I'm almost certainly on several lists for supporting various political prisoners and rights activists. Admittedly it's a bit unusual to make any of the list public, but no-one with the slightest clue about foreign travel should be in any way surprised at its mere existence.

 

[rwguinn]

I really don't understand what the fuss is about. This isn't some weird thing the UK just thought up, it's something done by every single country in the entire world. Hell, I'm almost certainly on several lists for supporting various political prisoners and rights activists. Admittedly it's a bit unusual to make any of the list public, but no-one with the slightest clue about foreign travel should be in any way surprised at its mere existence.

What!

You Right-wing radical dittohead! Obviously you are a US apologizer!

 

[Travis]

Making the list public is the only thing I really see wrong with it. I bet the US "no entry" list looks more like a phone book.

 

[Matthew Best]

I think, though I may be wrong, that this list is just a tiny extract of a much longer list (one that quite possibly looks more like a phone book), and the point of its release was to demonstrate the sort of activities that are likely to lead to refusal at the border. The government is trying to save undesirable people the expense and bother of buying tickets and travelling to the UK only to find out when they get here that they can't get in.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

American Voices: Michael Savage Banned From Britain (from the Onion)

“But to ban him simply on the basis of his views is to concede that he has a coherent opinion.”

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

My take on Michael Savage being banned:

Why? What's the point? And- how did the British government even discover his existence?

I'm an American and I've heard of him, yes, but only occasionally. Usually when he has stirred up some controversy with something he has said on his radio show. I once heard the Young Turks on Air America talking smack about him and his pseudonym (at least, I think it was the Young Turks; could have been another show). And that's it.

He's a shock jock. Of course he's offensive. Do the British know what American radio sounds like?

If you wanted to ban everyone who has ever said something crazy on air, you'd have to ban half the industry. From Howard Stern (for once making fun of Rodney King and expressing the opinion he should have been beaten by the cops, for one) to Ann Coulter.

 

[JihadJane]

The murderous, war-criminal UK government has a nerve preaching about the downside of encouraging violence and hatred.

I am just tired of the Same Old S--- from Jihad Jane all the time.
Or are you defending her rants?

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

- Chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, Nuremberg Trials.

Boring, innit?

 

[Lonewulf]

My take on Michael Savage being banned:

Why? What's the point? And- how did the British government even discover his existence?

I'm an American and I've heard of him, yes, but only occasionally. Usually when he has stirred up some controversy with something he has said on his radio show. I once heard the Young Turks on Air America talking smack about him and his pseudonym (at least, I think it was the Young Turks; could have been another show). And that's it.

He's a shock jock. Of course he's offensive. Do the British know what American radio sounds like?

If you wanted to ban everyone who has ever said something crazy on air, you'd have to ban half the industry. From Howard Stern (for once making fun of Rodney King and expressing the opinion he should have been beaten by the cops, for one) to Ann Coulter.

It's easy to say "We should wipe out all the Muslims!" and then say, "Hey, I'm a shock jock, I'm expected to call for genocides on a daily basis", but you know, you have to be pretty stupid to expect there to be no consequences for your words. Wasn't there a certain Don that found that out?

And I have a counter question: Why not? What's the point of allowing him into Britain anyways? If he entered the UK, what would he likely do there?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

It's easy to say "We should wipe out all the Muslims!" and then say, "Hey, I'm a shock jock, I'm expected to call for genocides on a daily basis", but you know, you have to be pretty stupid to expect there to be no consequences for your words. Wasn't there a certain Don that found that out?

And I have a counter question: Why not? What's the point of allowing him into Britain anyways? If he entered the UK, what would he likely do there?

An interesting observation is that the discussion here and in much of the press has often centred on one Usan hate monger when there were a total of 16 people banned at the same time.

The list includes Yunis Astal, a Hamas member and Muslim preacher who is accused of "engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to terrorist acts." I understand he lives in Gaza where he appears to be free to carry on preaching his venom.

The list includes Mike Guzovsky a Jewish extremist accused of '...engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to terrorist acts"...' I understand he lives in the West Bank where he seem able to carry on his campaign of hatred and support for terrorism.

I may be wrong but the hate monger Mr Weiner doesn't seem to have expressed any concern about being on the same list as Guzovsky.

It's good to see terrorist supporters and hate mongers getting the same treatment. They're not wanted in the UK.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If they were Brits living in this country I think there would be more concern but these are foreigners wanting to come into the country so have no rights here.

If one has borders, one must now and again enforce them to remind folks that when in London ...

Seeing Phred banned makes me rub my chin.

Did he apply to come to the UK?

DR

 

[Agatha]

Did he apply to come to the UK?

DR

I believe he and Shirl wanted to come here to protest against a college in Hampshire who were putting on a performance of The Laramie Project. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm They weren't permitted to come, and the demonstration was comprised of one (1) protester, who was heckled by several counter-demonstrators.