A HISTORY OF DECIEPT– UNDERSTANDING BRITISH MORIVES
By: Stachel Warner
Now is the time for our elected leaders to really join hand in hand and
start behaving like the mature representatives, the people requested during
the last election campaign. It’s not right to request that Anguillians trust
the British when they are finding it so difficult to trust you. It is
difficult to trust you because you are ill informed, acrimonious and
reactive rather than proactive. You show the tendency to lack opinions on
the most important issues. A good example of such behaviour is your lack of
clarity on the issues of British citizenship and nationality policy. Your
friends give the impression that the benefits out-weight the burdens yet you
as the elected government refuse to explain those so-called benefits. The
vast majority of persons are concerned about reciprocity, in your official
statements you make the point that there will be no reciprocity, what would
happen if you were wrong. What plans do you have and what will you be
prepared to do if they don’t live up to their promise. In the final analysis
I hope you are asking us to trust those people because you trust them and
not because capitulation to the whims of your handlers has left you feeling
besieged. Rather than speaking to the people you are intolerant of their
views, mystified by their reaction and erratic in your inglorious quest
national development.
History proves that trusting the British is very difficult. In an extensive
historical analysis of the reasons behind previous British immigration laws
easily shows why such trust is difficult. Unlike past years Britain’s
parliament has been decorated with a number of Afro-Saxons, despite this it
might be in our best interest to allow history to judge the British
intentions rather than us jumping head first into a so-called partnership.
It is important for us to remember as a people that all previous nationality
laws were aimed against Blacks and Asians.
The Bill before Parliament granting British Citizenship to all the remaining
colonies may be a belated attempt by this Labour Government administration
to right the many wrongs of previous Labour administrations against people
of colour in the former empire. If this is not the intention of the Bill
then it just falls in line with earlier sinister policies.
Since 1962 the consistent intention of British politics has been to keep
Black and Asian people out of Britain. The start of modern legislation
dealing with nationality issues was the 1962 Immigration Act. The 1948
Nationality Act gave all British subjects the right of admission to the UK.
It represented the first time that immigration controls had been applied
against Commonwealth citizens. In practice, White Commonwealth citizens were
not subject to controls while Black Commonwealth citizens had now to apply
for work vouchers.
In 1965 the Labour party government published a White Paper, entitled
'Immigration from the Commonwealth' it significantly reduced the number of
work vouchers.
The 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act introduced by Labour party revealed
once again that the dividing line for admission to Britain was race. This
Act allowed entry to Britain only if a person, or one parent or grandparent
was born or naturalised in the UK, this act was aimed at Asians living in
the newly independent African countries, for example White settlers from
Kenya holding British passports was welcomed while Asians also holding
British passports were excluded.
The Conservative party in their 1971 Immigration Act took the Labour party’s
idea in the 1968 act of 'birth and ancestry' one step further. The new terms
of 'Patrial' and 'non-Patrial' were introduced for the first time in this
act. For the first time there was a clear distinction between white and
non-white Citizens of the UK and Colonies. The whites called Patrials had
the absolute right of entry; non-Patrials were subject to immigration
control. Entry into the UK required a direct link of descent by blood. The
vast majority of non-whites could not meet this requirement. The 1971 Act
came into force on 1 January 1973, the very date Britain joined the EEC.
This proved the fallacy in their arguments, at the very point Britain was
using a variety immigration controls to actively close its door on non-white
people from the Commonwealth, it was opening its borders to nationals of
European countries.
It was the 1981 British Nationality Act that abolished the term 'patriality'
and replaced it with the new term: those with a 'close connection' with
Britain. Although this term meant exactly the same as 'patriality' it was
changed because of criticism from the European Human Rights Commission that
had described UK immigration law as racially motivated and degrading. The
1981 Nationality Act introduced five categories of British nationals -
British citizens, British Dependent Territories citizens, British Overseas
citizens, British Protected Persons and British subjects. It is important to
note that only the first category carries the right of abode in the UK. The
other four categories carry no such right and are nothing more than
worthless forms of nationality. The Conservative party introduced another
Immigration Act in 1988. This new Act repealed Section 1 (5) of the 1971
Act, which had assured Commonwealth citizens, settled in the UK before 1
January 1973 that wives and children would have freedom to enter the UK. In
consistent British hypocrisy the 1988 Act reassured white Commonwealth
citizens with ancestral links to UK and EEC nationals that their existing
rights to family life would continue. Again Britain opened its doors to
white immigrants and their families while putting every possible restriction
on the entry of non-white people and their families. One method used against
non-whites was the interviews at overseas posts and the method of
questioning. Questions were clearly designed not to get the truth but to
find reasons for refusal.
The purpose of law, according to Martin Luther King, is to establish
justice. A just law upholds human dignity while an unjust law undermines it.
Anguillians must learn the difference between laws that are just and laws
that are unjust. Laws that sanction racism can never be just. Laws based on
racism can have no place in a democratic society.
I believe it might be under these circumstances that the present Labour
government decided that it is the height of political folly to continue with
a policy of racism especially in light of the fact that the streets of
England had begun to explore with racial violence. Although this might be
the case and should be applauded, we need more information in order to be
convinced that this is not just another step in the development of a
comprehensive race based immigration policy. After so many years of
political rhetoric, dishonesty and deceit it is difficult to imagine there
is any political party committed to changing those laws. It is under these
circumstances that we find it difficult to heed the call of our politicians
to trust them, in light of this it matters little that our government seems
determined to remain silent on the whole question of citizenship. Based on
history we cannot trust them but we are willing to forgive them if they
decide to repent.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|
--------------------Headers --------------------
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from rly-xd03.mx.aol.com (rly-xd03.mail.aol.com
[172.20.105.168]) by air-xd02.mail.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id
MAILINXD23-0828082759; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:27:59 -0400
Received: from hotmail.com (f255.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.14.130]) by
rly-xd03.mx.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id
MAILRELAYINXD310-0828082725; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:27:25 -0400
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 05:27:24 -0700
Received: from 206.48.59.232 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with
HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:27:08 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [206.48.59.232]
From: "ANGUILLA INDEPENDENCE MOVEMNT - A.I.M."
<[email protected]>
Subject: Can you please publish?
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:27:08 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2001 12:27:24.0849 (UTC)
FILETIME=[CAF4EA10:01C12FBC]
|
