Poppycock claims

Just as day two in the Quila appeal kicks off (watch here or join the discussion here or please click the twitter blackbird pie item at the end of this post), I would just like to take the opportunity to state that the propaganda laden claims espoused by some pretty ridiculous people, whose ideological stance is polluting the UK’s environment by making this country xenophobic and anti-immigrant, are patently misleading and need revision.

The group’s headman, whose name I refuse to reproduce here as this would complement him, has stated on the BBC’s website that:

“The main reason the system is so deeply flawed is that the basis of the UK’s immigration control, the face-to-face interview, no longer plays any part in the process.

“The PBS (points-based system) has turned out to be a box-ticking exercise that places the initiative with those who have a financial interest in a visa being granted. No wonder employers prefer it.”

Statements such as the ones extracted above exhibit a comprehensive misunderstanding of the PBS within which refusal rates are very high (especially in Pakistan and India) even where the applicant legitimately scores the required points.

The PBS is anything but a box ticking exercise. The UKBA doesn’t have adequately trained staff to deal with the PBS. This makes them refuse visas in a really mad kind of way. For example, in-country student applications made by housemates on the same day with the same documents produce completely different results. Out of a sample of five such housemates two might get the visa but three will not.

There is a litany of refusals which I have seen based on ECOs/ECMs checking balances for evidence of funds on the day of decision whereas the rules expressly only require evidence of funds to be set out in the antecedent. I am not so surprised but guess who can’t still (or simply won’t) follow the law. Another ploy is to say that “Oh but your account is not verified by the Central Bank of India”.

If the rule in PBS applications is to see evidence of funds on the day then the rule should spell this out and the crap about holding the money for 3 months continuously should be dropped.


As for interviews for visas, the whole idea of extraterritorial immigration control is geared towards minimising expense and contact with immigration subjects by using technology (which might or might not work).

Empty claims – which turn purely on self-generated propaganda material – made by the government and its cronies just attempt to muddle the true picture. Perhaps to acquire an accurate view they should begin to read here and here just to get a glimpse of what they are doing to people. (It’s not that they don’t know all this, it’s just that their politics is so downrightly dirty that they simply don’t care.)

What, if anything, does the maker of the above statements (about the PBS) suggest as a solution or alternative? To make the decision at the port of entry like in the old days of his youth during the Great War? What a Dinosaur he is to make suggestions such as that.

Let’s have interviews at the border again for all applicants, that way we can increase the strength of the UKBA’s staff from 25,000 to 50,000 – this approach will no doubt really help with the UK’s spending cuts and plummeting economy. What a great idea!

In my view every claim the maker of the above statements advances suffers from an acute defect – usually in terms of the veracity of what was said.

The same self-fulfilling and subjectively manifested misrepresentations are also applied by the government to asylum, settlement and spouse visas etc. (Either a comprehensive misunderstanding or just pure propaganda – in my view the latter no doubt.)

This organisation’s head honcho has also espoused similar beliefs in relation to spouse visas and the “abuse of the system”: I hope to statistically correct him on this and some of his other poppycock claims in due course. (After watching the UKSC’s proceedings in Quila.)

Maybe someone should force him and members of his “organisation” to live apart from their families in another country.

Some others, however, have been watching “the watchers” and Oxford University’s anti-propaganda view is available at the Migration Observatory. (Surely the majority view taken by Oxford University must be right.)

Most importantly, the Quila hearing, which is about an inexorable immigration rule (about “forced marriages”) impinging upon human rights, can be discussed and viewed via the blackbird pie item posted below.

Please go to the Free Movement Blog and join the discussion and express your views about immigration/human rights issues when the final part of the hearing in the UKSC begins at 14:00 today:

About Asad Ali Khan, BA, MSc, MA, LL.B (Hons), LL.M

Senior Partner, Khan & Co, Barristers-at-Law
This entry was posted in Article 8, Immigration Rules, India, PBS, Spouses, UKBA, UKSC and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.