"I have never welcomed the weakening of family ties by politics or pressure" - Nelson Mandela.
"He who travels for love finds a thousand miles no longer than one" - Japanese proverb.
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." - Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
"When people's love is divided by law, it is the law that needs to change". -
David Cameron.

Sunday, 8 September 2013

Lib Dem Sarah Teather to quit Parliament over party's 'catastrophic' immigration stance.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dem-sarah-teather-to-quit-parliament-over-partys-catastrophic-immigration-stance-8803503.html

'Ms Teather maintained that Mr Clegg was "a decent bloke", but complained that he led a party that too often appeared to have lost its passion for the values that had attracted her as a teenager.

'Her announcement, in the week before his party gathers for a crucial conference in Glasgow, will intensify calls for Mr Clegg to re-establish the political distance between the Lib Dems and their Tory coalition partners before the next general election.'

Someone affected by the rules writes :

I can so identify with her quote:

The BBC  quoted her as saying that Mr Clegg's tougher approach to immigration - including a plan for some immigrants to pay a £1,000 deposit when applying for visas - left her feeling "desolate" and "catastrophically depressed".

That is exactly how I felt as the  mother the someone affected by these policies, and have continued to feel since the inhumane decision to refuse a visa to my son’s wife broke our family and left my son and daughter-in-law in exile!

Now these appalling policies are even breaking MPs!

There is something terribly wrong with this whole scenario – who are these Brits who want this kind of policy?


Sarah Teather:

'The first thing that is very apparent about the new rules is that they represent a distinct philosophical shift in approach from the old rules. The system used to be tilted in favour of family life, subject to certain basic conditions being met, such as the ability to support a spouse coming into the UK and the ability to meet a basic income threshold, which was pretty much tantamount to a basic income threshold that we would expect around income support levels. Now, the system is tilted entirely in the opposite direction, and against family life, unless someone can meet certain requirements to demonstrate that their spouse who is coming into the UK is desirable in some way and meets some extra criteria. So rather than having a system that was very much about keeping families together, the system now is about serving an overall objective on immigration policy, with family life being significantly relegated in importance. Of course, it is not only family life that is being relegated in importance, but relationships, children’s best interests, basic human compassion and a certain level of common sense.

'...Why are the rules being so rigidly and inflexibly enforced? It is because income probably has nothing to do with it. It is not really about trying to prevent a burden on the taxpayer; it is actually about the Government trying to demonstrate that we are reducing the number of foreigners coming into the UK. That is driving it. If anything else were driving it, it would be implemented in a far more common-sense way, there would be much more flexibility around it, and it would not have been set at a level to keep out as many people as possible.'

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130619/halltext/130619h0001.htm

No comments:

Post a comment