A good friend of mine, a lawyer, moved to Australia and married an Australian woman, also a lawyer, when he was out there. I remember him telling me the absolute nightmare it was to be able to get her to move back to the UK with him legally. He admitted they only stuck with it due to connections they had made with well placed lawyers both in England and Australia.
I thought it was entirely galling that they were treated this way when it's the exact type of transnational marriages we should be encouraging. One hopes we can get to a point politically when Anglos like Aussies, Kiwis and Saffers are given exception to these stupid rules.
"Such a policy would not technically undermine the concept of a ‘race-blind’ state, as it does not imply any difference between British citizens of different ethnicities – which would be unacceptable under current British political norms – as the differing requirements would apply to people who are not, in fact, British citizens. That is to say, the new requirements would apply to non-citizen applicants of certain nationalities."
This is a neat point, but it is worth noting that the Equality Act 2010 defines 'race' as including nationality (section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c)). Not sure what the position is under the ECHR, but it's probably similar. In Western rights law, the word "race" rarely refers simply to a broad classification such as the old Caucasian/Asian/African triad.
To the extent that it is possible, it's usually only because a specific piece of legislation expressly says so, usually one of the Immigration Acts or a subsequent piece of secondary legislation. The Equality Act doesn't change what legislation you can pass, it changes what public authorities are permitted to do with powers they already have.
Moreover, it is possible to discriminate under the Equality Act as long as the decision-maker can show the discriminatory act was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (section 13(2)), but of course that means the final decision on whether such an act is permissible is taken by a court after a judicial review of a policy or decision, not by a civil servant or minister in enacting that policy or taking that decision.
The point of my comment is not really about the legal barriers to a given policy, which can usually be overcome. The point is really that the legal environment in which policy is made has already accounted for some ways around what you might think of as the basic text of the law, and that's an important part of determining what's politically possible as well as legally feasible.
Related to this liberalism vs multiculturalism and marriage topic, I've always found the history of the Han ethnicity interesting (you don't get a single ethnic group of over a billion people by accident). The Ming Code forbade central Asian 'Semu' Muslims to marry each other and forced them to marry Han, in the context of the Ming being a new Han dynasty trying to solidify political control after years of foreign Mongol rule. And there are some indications they're kind of surreptitiously pursuing a similar policy with the Uyghurs.
This is not a policy I would advocate, but the broader lesson is illiberal problems are most directly dealt with via illiberal solutions.
Having said that, I think the "Britain could follow Denmark in keeping cousin marriage legal, but treating all transnational cousin marriages as cases of ‘forced marriage’ a priori." is the best option here. If liberalism is to be preserved it requires strong enforcement of its norms.
Great point about the Han Chinese. There's nothing wrong with protecting your own ethnic group, and your fellow citizens from outsiders. It is the story of humanity.
It's kind of ridiculous to even compare returning to a strong border to the ethnic conflicts of the Han Chinese, though. They are a single ethnic group compared to the most diverse countries in history. Preventing even MORE migration at this point is about as dissimilar to the ethnic cleansing of China as apples and oranges. Using comparisons like the holocaust or the Han Chinese to talk about immigration in the West is disingenuous leftist propaganda at best.
I say all this with all due respect. I understand your dedication to the welcoming and generous nature that defines the West. I wish it wasn't abused too. There's no reason we can't have SMALL groups of immigrants and TRUE refugees like we always have. But we MUST take back our sovereignty, STOP illegal immigration, DEPORT the illegals already here, and ensure that our system is no longer susceptible to the rampant FRAUD we currently see. Treating this like it's a small problem requiring only small legal changes is counterproductive. As we update the rules, MILLIONS more enter without consequence and BILLIONS more is spent.
How long can we keep acting like spoiled teenagers with a credit card? How long can we give away the benefits of the hard work of our ancestors? How much debt is TOO MUCH?
40 TRILLION?
50?
Why should a small minority be allowed to forever change the demographics and voters of our nations in direct defiance of the will of the citizens? Illegal immigration has ALWAYS been opposed by about 75-80% of the electorate, yet we only ever get MORE. The public CONSTANTLY votes for LESS immigration, yet we always get MORE.
Very interesting article, in particular about the genetic problems resulting from in breeding among families. U.S. and allied Western combat units had a distinct advantage when fighting any Arab or Muslim forces at night. Because of a thousand or more years of marrying 1st and 2nd cousins, a very specific trait in eyesight had been almost completely bred out of the Muslims, so much so that many could not see at night, or had much less capability to do so, than Western pilots and troops. It put their combat units at a severe disadvantage to ours and resulted in much death and destruction of Muslim units and pilots.
This is a well-written article with fantastic information and suggestions. Having said that, the way we handle this debate is ABSURD. The way to stop this nonsense in ALL Western countries is to STOP the mass migration and chain migration. A FULL STOP on immigration and MASS DEPORTATIONS are the ONLY solution. Your suggestions, while well thought out, are mere bandaids on an existential threat. We are far past the point of "reducing" migration or changing illogical rules to limit the number of third-world foreigners entering our countries. We talk about this issue as if we have some OBLIGATION to both continue allowing untold numbers of migrants EXCLUSIVELY into Western countries, and to allow those who have scammed our system to stay. If 30-50 MILLION illegals in America isn't enough to say NO MORE, then what is? If a 5,000% jump in African and Middle Eastern migrants in the UK isn't enough to say we're DONE, then what is? Playing this compromise game as if the other side is working in good-faith is ludicrous. That's the EXACT posturing that has resulted in the migration crises we see today. We will NEVER regain our countries with WEAKNESS. Moving poor migrants to prosperous countries only makes EVERYONE worse-off. These people should be working to improve their OWN countries, not making ours worse.
Why did you not include the reinstatement of the primary purpose rule in your list of policy recommendations, do you think there would be too much collateral damage?
I think it is unlikely the courts and bureaucracy would interpret this in the same way they did in the past — that is to say, they would focus on actual ‘sham’ marriages as opposed to arranged marriages.
A good friend of mine, a lawyer, moved to Australia and married an Australian woman, also a lawyer, when he was out there. I remember him telling me the absolute nightmare it was to be able to get her to move back to the UK with him legally. He admitted they only stuck with it due to connections they had made with well placed lawyers both in England and Australia.
I thought it was entirely galling that they were treated this way when it's the exact type of transnational marriages we should be encouraging. One hopes we can get to a point politically when Anglos like Aussies, Kiwis and Saffers are given exception to these stupid rules.
"Such a policy would not technically undermine the concept of a ‘race-blind’ state, as it does not imply any difference between British citizens of different ethnicities – which would be unacceptable under current British political norms – as the differing requirements would apply to people who are not, in fact, British citizens. That is to say, the new requirements would apply to non-citizen applicants of certain nationalities."
This is a neat point, but it is worth noting that the Equality Act 2010 defines 'race' as including nationality (section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c)). Not sure what the position is under the ECHR, but it's probably similar. In Western rights law, the word "race" rarely refers simply to a broad classification such as the old Caucasian/Asian/African triad.
Thank you for the information. How come we can even discriminate for other visas, then? Or is even this ability restricted?
To the extent that it is possible, it's usually only because a specific piece of legislation expressly says so, usually one of the Immigration Acts or a subsequent piece of secondary legislation. The Equality Act doesn't change what legislation you can pass, it changes what public authorities are permitted to do with powers they already have.
Moreover, it is possible to discriminate under the Equality Act as long as the decision-maker can show the discriminatory act was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (section 13(2)), but of course that means the final decision on whether such an act is permissible is taken by a court after a judicial review of a policy or decision, not by a civil servant or minister in enacting that policy or taking that decision.
The point of my comment is not really about the legal barriers to a given policy, which can usually be overcome. The point is really that the legal environment in which policy is made has already accounted for some ways around what you might think of as the basic text of the law, and that's an important part of determining what's politically possible as well as legally feasible.
Related to this liberalism vs multiculturalism and marriage topic, I've always found the history of the Han ethnicity interesting (you don't get a single ethnic group of over a billion people by accident). The Ming Code forbade central Asian 'Semu' Muslims to marry each other and forced them to marry Han, in the context of the Ming being a new Han dynasty trying to solidify political control after years of foreign Mongol rule. And there are some indications they're kind of surreptitiously pursuing a similar policy with the Uyghurs.
This is not a policy I would advocate, but the broader lesson is illiberal problems are most directly dealt with via illiberal solutions.
Having said that, I think the "Britain could follow Denmark in keeping cousin marriage legal, but treating all transnational cousin marriages as cases of ‘forced marriage’ a priori." is the best option here. If liberalism is to be preserved it requires strong enforcement of its norms.
Great point about the Han Chinese. There's nothing wrong with protecting your own ethnic group, and your fellow citizens from outsiders. It is the story of humanity.
It's kind of ridiculous to even compare returning to a strong border to the ethnic conflicts of the Han Chinese, though. They are a single ethnic group compared to the most diverse countries in history. Preventing even MORE migration at this point is about as dissimilar to the ethnic cleansing of China as apples and oranges. Using comparisons like the holocaust or the Han Chinese to talk about immigration in the West is disingenuous leftist propaganda at best.
I say all this with all due respect. I understand your dedication to the welcoming and generous nature that defines the West. I wish it wasn't abused too. There's no reason we can't have SMALL groups of immigrants and TRUE refugees like we always have. But we MUST take back our sovereignty, STOP illegal immigration, DEPORT the illegals already here, and ensure that our system is no longer susceptible to the rampant FRAUD we currently see. Treating this like it's a small problem requiring only small legal changes is counterproductive. As we update the rules, MILLIONS more enter without consequence and BILLIONS more is spent.
How long can we keep acting like spoiled teenagers with a credit card? How long can we give away the benefits of the hard work of our ancestors? How much debt is TOO MUCH?
40 TRILLION?
50?
Why should a small minority be allowed to forever change the demographics and voters of our nations in direct defiance of the will of the citizens? Illegal immigration has ALWAYS been opposed by about 75-80% of the electorate, yet we only ever get MORE. The public CONSTANTLY votes for LESS immigration, yet we always get MORE.
Very interesting article, in particular about the genetic problems resulting from in breeding among families. U.S. and allied Western combat units had a distinct advantage when fighting any Arab or Muslim forces at night. Because of a thousand or more years of marrying 1st and 2nd cousins, a very specific trait in eyesight had been almost completely bred out of the Muslims, so much so that many could not see at night, or had much less capability to do so, than Western pilots and troops. It put their combat units at a severe disadvantage to ours and resulted in much death and destruction of Muslim units and pilots.
Danny Huckabee
This is a well-written article with fantastic information and suggestions. Having said that, the way we handle this debate is ABSURD. The way to stop this nonsense in ALL Western countries is to STOP the mass migration and chain migration. A FULL STOP on immigration and MASS DEPORTATIONS are the ONLY solution. Your suggestions, while well thought out, are mere bandaids on an existential threat. We are far past the point of "reducing" migration or changing illogical rules to limit the number of third-world foreigners entering our countries. We talk about this issue as if we have some OBLIGATION to both continue allowing untold numbers of migrants EXCLUSIVELY into Western countries, and to allow those who have scammed our system to stay. If 30-50 MILLION illegals in America isn't enough to say NO MORE, then what is? If a 5,000% jump in African and Middle Eastern migrants in the UK isn't enough to say we're DONE, then what is? Playing this compromise game as if the other side is working in good-faith is ludicrous. That's the EXACT posturing that has resulted in the migration crises we see today. We will NEVER regain our countries with WEAKNESS. Moving poor migrants to prosperous countries only makes EVERYONE worse-off. These people should be working to improve their OWN countries, not making ours worse.
Why did you not include the reinstatement of the primary purpose rule in your list of policy recommendations, do you think there would be too much collateral damage?
I think it is unlikely the courts and bureaucracy would interpret this in the same way they did in the past — that is to say, they would focus on actual ‘sham’ marriages as opposed to arranged marriages.