Sunday, February 19, 2006

"They're fairly lenient now"

Fortress Britain : or how the 'gay marriage' laws make illegal immigration legal.

A further five firms were visited by an undercover female reporter who claimed that she wished to “marry” her lesbian Ukrainian girlfriend.

In the meetings she admitted she had a boyfriend and that her “lesbian” lover was simply a friend who wanted a British passport. Three solicitors said there was no requirement to prove a sexual relationship.

A fourth solicitor, Irene Anin of Welbeck Anin Solicitors in Camberwell, south London, said, “It shouldn’t be a problem, you just say you’re girlfriends. As for what goes on behind closed doors, [that] has got nothing to do with anybody.”

The reporter was told she would need to provide letters, photographs and other evidence of a “relationship”. Anin added: “They [the Home Office] will be happy with that. I think they’re fairly lenient now.”

Only one firm of solicitors out of five told her where to go.

Also in the Sunday Times :

What we’re seeing in the East End of London is ghettoisation . . . The kids lead lives with one foot in the airport. They don’t want to belong. They don’t want to become part of the British story.”

And Patricia Morgan on how marriage was 'de-privileged'.

"So what? The consensus of government, the main political parties, academia, children’s charities and public bodies has for long been that nothing should be said, let alone done, about the implications of changing family structure, unless it be to cheer it all on. We must welcome and support “diverse” and “vibrant” new “family forms”. The way we live now is by “participating in a web of relationships”, or revolving-door partnerships and haphazard reproduction.

Raise any doubts and you will be sanctimoniously told how families come “in all shapes and sizes”. What will be waved is an example of the fantastic lone parent rearing high-achieving children to offset the multitude of well-run studies that have for long been telling how children born or adopted and raised in an intact marriage are — on average — more apt to avoid criminal and psychiatric trouble, achieve more educationally, become gainfully employed and, in turn, successfully raise the next generation. "


Anonymous said...

Marriage based immigration was fine years ago when a marriage lasted for life, but now with many people getting married 2-3-4+ times it seems to me like marriage alone shouldn't be a basis for allowing immigration. Marriage aint what it used to be.

chris said...

This is not a new loophole at all, using conventional marriage purely for the purposes of getting a passport has been going on since forever. It is common practice amongst Pakistani communities to import spouses from back home. So why is it surprising that gay marriage can be used in the same way?

Anonymous said...

Chris if you admit we have a problem with people using marriage to cheat the immigration controls why would you not condemn the government for making it worse?

Anonymous said...

The difference seems to be that in regard to a normal marriage the immigration bods would quite happily question you on aspects of your marriage. With a gay cople they will nod everything through, dont want to upset a designated victim group now do we.

Anonymous said...


I think I meant couple!

chris said...

why would you not condemn the government for making it worse?

'Cos they they are just making immigration equal. That one part of a gay couple can get his or her spouse in to the country is exactly the same as that one part of a strait couple can get his or her spouse in. That someone can claim to be part of a false gay couple when they could only claim to be part of a false strait couple is an obvious side effect, and systems are already in place to deal with it.

Not once was there real evidence that it was being as an immigration scam anyway, just that it could be. As can strait marriage. The only evidence was that most lawyers are only in it for the money. No surprises there either.

If they aren't quizzed as much as strait couples then fine, make the barriers equal. Perhaps the barriers should be even tougher than they are now, fine and make sure they are applied equally. But the article implies that this loophole is unprecedented and exclusive to gay marriage when it isn't.

Anonymous said...

You don't mind making things worse as long as they are equal.

and thats why leftists always do end up making things worse.

Larry Teabag said...

and thats why leftists always do end up making things worse.

Since we're just throwing abuse rather than debating the issue, I'll add that as usual what we're seeing here is rightists desparately searching for justification for their ingrained prejudices. This post marks a new low though.

Are sham marriages an argument against straight marriage? No obviously not. So why is it an argument against gay marriage? Because any excuse to be anti gay marriage will do.

Laban said...

The number of genuine 'gay marriages' involving people from the Indian subcontinent could probably be counted on the fingers of a Saudi thief's hand.

They tend to take a negative view of such things there.

Anonymous said...

yeah larry, sham marriages are an arguement against all marriages imo.
Marriage has been turned into nothing but a joke with all this no fault divorce.