View previous topic | View next topic

Boriswatch

Page 24 of 24
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24

cnb
1264400.  Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:37 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
It may not be fair but, and I'm going out on a limb here, I'm guessing the whole "marrying the Queen's grandson" thing renders all other conditions moot.


Of course, thanks to one on those "Henry VIII clauses" we've heard so much about recently.

The Immigration Act 1971 (as amended) wrote:
The Secretary of State may by order exempt any person or class of persons, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be imposed by or under the order, from all or any of the provisions of this Act relating to those who are not British citizens.

 
suze
1264402.  Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:41 pm Reply with quote

Do royal duties count as "government business"?

That question has probably never mattered before, but when a member of the Royal Family makes a royal visit she represents the Queen rather than Mrs May.

In any case, the granting of UK citizenship is not automatic. Let us suppose that a civil servant in a bad mood arbitrarily declines her application - which does undoubtedly happen from time to time. There is no right of appeal, although you can ask for the decision to be "reconsidered".

The buck here stops with the Home Secretary. Just suppose that by the time we get that far, that is Diane Abbott ...

 
suze
1264405.  Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:46 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
It may not be fair but, and I'm going out on a limb here, I'm guessing the whole "marrying the Queen's grandson" thing renders all other conditions moot.


You mean she's a special case? I shall be absolutely furious if she is, when we have a government full of people who like saying things like "Britain is full".

I'm also reading that the Royal Family is happy not to construe Ms Markle as a Roman Catholic on the grounds that she is non-practising - but to put the matter beyond doubt she is to be received into the Church of England. Do we imagine that she will be paying the £14 fee for Church of England baptism herself?

 
cnb
1264407.  Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:59 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
You mean she's a special case? I shall be absolutely furious if she is, when we have a government full of people who like saying things like "Britain is full".


She would be eligible for residence without any special treatment. Making an exception to the citizenship process doesn't affect the immigration figures.

 
suze
1264428.  Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:33 pm Reply with quote

As the fiancée of a British citizen, Ms Markle is eligible to apply for a family visa. I trust that she will be paying the fee of £1,993 (inclusive of Immigration Health Surcharge) in the same way as anyone else from the US who seeks a visa to live in the UK. Given that Ms Markle is a reasonably successful actor, I am willing to believe that she currently earns the required £18,600 pa.

The point at which she comes to the UK in possession of that family visa is the point at which she becomes an immigration statistic; I trust that she will not magically be excluded.

As for making her a special case when it comes to applying for British citizenship, why should we?

 
barbados
1264449.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:38 am Reply with quote

Are you suggesting she should be treated like everyone else that comes to the UK to make it their home?

 
suze
1264524.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:07 pm Reply with quote

Yes. The government takes great delight in creating ever more hoops through which a would-be immigrant must jump.

I can see no reason whatsoever why Ms Markle should be exempted from any of them, or why you and I should pay for her to jump through any of them. (The Home Office and the Prime Minister's office have both referred media enquiries as to whether Ms Markle will be excused the usual fee for a visa to the other. If the answer to the question was "no", they'd have answered it.)

 
crissdee
1264536.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:02 pm Reply with quote

It may be immoral, illegal or otherwise, but the reality is that her application will be treated differently to almost anybody else's because she is joining "The Firm" and the boss of "The Firm" is the boss of everyone who will process said application.

 
barbados
1264538.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:43 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Yes. The government takes great delight in creating ever more hoops through which a would-be immigrant must jump.

I can see no reason whatsoever why Ms Markle should be exempted from any of them, or why you and I should pay for her to jump through any of them. (The Home Office and the Prime Minister's office have both referred media enquiries as to whether Ms Markle will be excused the usual fee for a visa to the other. If the answer to the question was "no", they'd have answered it.)


So which "everyone" should she be treated as?
The ones that are restricted from residing in the UK, or the ones that are welcome regardless?

It gets a bit messy when you suggest wanting to treat everyone equally is racist doesn't it?

 
suze
1264546.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:50 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
It may be immoral, illegal or otherwise, but the reality is that her application will be treated differently to almost anybody else's because she is joining "The Firm" and the boss of "The Firm" is the boss of everyone who will process said application.


I suspect that you are right, and that the reality is as you suggest. It is not illegal because the Home Secretary absolutely does have the power to disregard the "rules", but that does not make it proper.

But the public mood is such that it doesn't want to hear this right now, and so Ms Rudd has an awkward decision to make. If it were only voices from the harder left who can't be doing with the royals in any case who were asking the questions, it would be easy. She could in effect say "Be quiet you silly little lefties, of course the rules can be bent if it suits the Queen".

But it isn't. Tweed-suited bastions of the Conservative Party are usually quite enthusiastic when it comes to royalty, but less enthusiastic about foreigners, least of all divorced Americans who are registered Democrats. The racist right will usually disagree with anything that comes from the hard left on principle - except that Ms Markle identifies as black, and so those on the racist right don't like her.

I don't advise you actually to do this because you'll lose the will to live if you do, but look at the comments on the Daily Mail's coverage of the Harry / Meghan engagement story. Of course some are saying "Hurrah, hurrah, we love the royals, we like happy news" - but at least as many are saying one or all of "we don't want an American in the royal family", "we don't want a leftie in the royal family", "we don't want another divorced person in the royal family", and "we don't want a black person in the royal family". This is a problem for a government which wouldn't be in power without Daily Mail readers.

 
cornixt
1264628.  Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:05 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
This is a problem for a government which wouldn't be in power without Daily Mail readers.

It neatly replicates the Republican party problem in the US.

 

Page 24 of 24
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group