[This was modified on May 1st as a result of rethinking, itself as a result of the comments below which might not apply to the new post.]# Immigrants of quality should be encouraged but illegal immigrants should be identified, assessed for quality by panels of local authorities and if found wanting - deported immediately, along with all members of the extended family. No pussyfooting around.
No torture, no long drawn out litigation - simply out of the country and then they can re-negotiate their re-entry from over there.
# If they are poor people escaping an oppressive regime, say
# Immigrants entering a country should observe the adage: When in
Immigrants' primary purpose is to integrate with the society whilst pursuing their own goals. However, if those goals include encouraging discord in the state they've entered or clearly divergent ideas and modes of behaviour, this should have them before the panel.
Whilst resident in the country, their mores, social norms and the like should loosely conform to those of the native inhabitants. It's a simple test as to what those mores etc. are. If a major proportion of the community cry out over this, then those mores are not suitable.
If youths take part in street demonstrations and the like, then it depends if the issue was local or religious/ethnic. If the latter, then they go with parents to the panel.
# Britain is a broadly Christian country, at lest nominally. It's one thng not to follow this religion - that's their right - but it's not OK to act directly against it. Same goes for parliament.
# If their religion or home society is known for its corrosive, destructive nature and has a history of intolerance, e.g. oppression of women and being spread by the sword, then the panel would naturally take this into account.
The official religion? James that's Anglicanism- do you advocate that catholic Irishmen and Orthodox Russians should abandon their faiths and convert to Anglicanism in order to live in the country. And should this be reciprocal- should you have to convert to the Orthodox faith before you are allowed into Russia.
ReplyDeleteIndeed you often argue that secularism is the real religion of the UK- should I be able to demand that you abandon Christianity when you return. Lets go a bit further about your own case- you aren't shy of expressing your religious views, should we be able to close down this blog unless you profess your allegiance to the Christian sovereign of the British isles and the Archbishop fo Canterbury- should the Russians be able to close down this blog because you don't adhere to the orthodox faith.
Why should people be thrown out for demonstrating? It isn't illegal, say if they demonstrated about a road going through a place of natural beauty should they really be thrown out of the country. Should Iraqis have been thrown out out if they protested for or against the war in 2003?
Second generation should be thrown out? Ok lets take that on too- how can their families control them, especially if say they are estranged and have moved away having got to the age of 18 something that happens to many kids in every society. If they later behave badly say ten years after never speaking to thier families before should everyone be thrown out. Furthermore where should they go- particularly if they don't have citizenship elsewhere and can't speak another language.
Last question- we wouldn't torture and would discard people but what about sending people to places where we know that they would suffer barbaric tortures or even death as soon as they arrived. Any protester who beleived in democracy (not islamic fundamentalism but just democracy) would risk such a death or torture in some countries- North Korea for example. Saudi Arabia might well torture many of the people that we sent back there.
Sorry James I don't buy this post at all. I think there are all sorts of unresolved issues at the centre of it. I do think there is an interface between loyalty and citizenship and immigration but I don't think it has anything to do with the religion of those arriving, much more to do with their civic values, and I don't think that it is as simple as expelling people who publically disagree by protesting with current government policy.
I don't think that it is as simple as expelling people who publically disagree by protesting with current government policy.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, this is a misreading of the post. Re the borders - there are holding areas where 'humane' was the adjective used for how the illegal is treated.
Re the religion/Catholic thing - of course it's a question of common sense. But the majority of people in Britain know what is meant by British culture and values. That's why so many wish to enter.
I must respectively disagree with your 'carte-blanche' stance on who comes in. There are, demonstrably, people who are not desirable coming in. there are also home-grown undesirables but they can't be deported anywhere.
Also with due respect, as an expat over here, it's abundantly clear that there is a need for the immigrant to conform to, 'loosely' I wrote, the accepted mores and values.
The language in ths post was strong but I believe the idea behind it was 'reasonable'. the majority of people are not being discussed ehre as they'd do all this anyway.
Which part don't you buy, Tiberius? Loyalty to the country of your birth or adoption? Or insistence that others don't try to undermine it?
The thing with your good self, Tiberius - is that you're a thoroughly nice chap, well read, cultured and kind to a fault. Admirable qualities and thus I can understand your reaction against 'gung-ho' statements.
But Tiberius, this easy kindness of yours is not what's required with what are quite nasty people. You know full well that I live with people here who are thoroughly good people, though of a different religion and culture to me.
Everything is fine because we're all reasonable about things and don't get het up over trivialities.
This is not whom I was referring to at all in the post. The ones referred to in the post must be blocked and I know that offends your sensibilities but it's our differing backgrounds, perhaps.
Mine is military and yours is doing a PhD on the military.
Have a lovely Monday. Debate is healthy.
Tiberius, I'll do a point by point later but have to work just now. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteI think too that "when in Rome, do as the Romans do"
ReplyDeleteLaws and uniforms, etc should not change for someone coming from a different country. Here they have done unfortunately at times.
tea
xo
There are a few good points in there James but I am particulary concerned about deporting an entire family because of one bad apple. The bad apple should go. If that was applied to the UK population 95% of the entire population would be gone. The other 5% are the Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and other closed communities. On second thoughts, maybe not the Jehovahs Witnesses. I understand it could be a crime to keep quiet about something soon. What exactly did they see anyway?
ReplyDeleteOn returning people to countries that may execute or torture them. If it is certain, maybe a dissenter, then we should not send but in principle it is OK. But we need to be very clear what crimes that qualifies for that and ensure they are know. Throwing a apple core in a wheelie bin may be a crime in our country now but it should not be a deportable offence. Because our do gooders will expand any crimes that you could be deported from I am against it on principle. We should send them to France or somewhere where they will fit right in.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do... drive like a lunatic, shout and gesticulate a lot...
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, James, I fear you're following your own prescription a bit too seriously and taking on the attitudes and mores of your adopted country, at least as they were a generation ago. Loyalty oaths, summary deportations of whole extended families for the transgressions of an individual member (shades of Stalin's treatment of the families of deserters there, I think, and that was at least during wartime), penalties for attending demonstrations, regular examinations of people from suspect backgrounds by local soviets/комитеты/ authorities...
James, whatever happened to good old lower-case 'c' British conservative ideas like leaving people to get on with their own lives so long as they don't thus interfere with others getting on with theirs, and leaving the state to interfere only when this brings parties into conflicts they can't resolve between themselves?
You're in danger of going native, old chap!
Yes indeed, NSS. As you say:
ReplyDelete...so long as they don't thus interfere with others getting on with theirs, and leaving the state to interfere only when this brings parties into conflicts they can't resolve between themselves?...
That's the scenario the post addresses - these sorts of people, as distinct from the ones who do:
...get on with their own lives...
The ones who do let one alone don't need a manifesto.
We all know that most legal immigrants are decent people who assimilate into the societies to which they immigrate. All of my grandparents immigrated to America and became Americans; they even forbade us to speak anything other than English. (I’m not sure if that was such a good idea in this global economy.) I think most immigrants fall into this category.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that there is one group of immigrants who whether they immigrated legally of illegally are attempting to force their religion onto the citizens of the countries they invade. They use turnspeak as a propaganda method (blame the victim), and they infiltrate to dominate. Their cause is to convert you to their ideology. They provoke then sue for civil rights violations when you object.
If you are not one of them, they consider you inferior, a pig or a monkey. They feel they are superior to everyone that doesn’t believe their beliefs. They are on a drive for power, and feel they are directed by and acting in the name of God. They will kill you if you don’t convert to their beliefs, and they claim they love death, not life.
They are a threat to the stability of the world.
WM
The voice of sense, Winfred. I thought I was alone on this.
ReplyDeleteEnjoyable and interesting debate. Here's what I said ages ago:
ReplyDeletehttp://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com/2006/07/criminal-justice-2-multiculturalism.html
Any other cultures should be welcomed, so long as their values are adapted so as not to be inconsistent with ours. Not just the criminal law, so that the likes of Mr Tai can't (literally) get away with murder, but in a much wider context. Immigrants should stand in queues like the English do (so should a fair few English oiks come to think of it). They should learn to speak English (ditto the oiks). They should be told that discrimination against women is illegal here (ditto), as is discrimination against other racial or religious groups (err, ditto yet again).
When I was at school overseas, we would occasionally have new students who were refugees from Palestine and Israel. We would be instructed by the teachers to make them welcome, help them with the language and any other cultural issues. They in turn were told that we didn't do the whole Arab/Jew or Israeli/Palestinian thing here and they therefore had to leave it at the door. They would have to interact fully with all students including their former enemies. That's what it meant to belong to their new country and that was the bargain expected of them in return for gaining sanctuary and acceptance in it.
Why can't we do the same here and now? My close Asian friends certainly think we should. Their families were forced to come here because of the policies of East African governments after independence. Britain has benefited from their model citizenship ever since. I consider their success story something to celebrate, and an example to all. Equally, the devastating economic effects East Africa suffered from expelling its middle class is a salutary lesson to the BNP who'd send Britain's Asians 'back' at the first chance they'd get.
Some very good points in these comments, which should be re-iterated. I'm afraid this is entirely ill-thought through and deeply repressive. Defining our national character is always tricky, but part of it was forged in a centuries-long battle to be free of the oppression of our official state religion. Now you want oaths of loyalty sworn to it? How extremely un-British. they might do that sort of thing in Pakistan, but they don;t do it here, and thankfully.
ReplyDeleteSome other points to consider:
You appear to assume that ;children of immigrants' are not British. This is rubbish,. I am a white Englishman. My wife is a brown English woman, her parents came here from India in the 1970s. My wife and I are both as British - as English - as each other, and you have no right to suggest otherwise. What you are actually propsiong is a racially coded national identity. Your suggestion about demonstrations, for example, applies different rules to white Britons and black/brown Britons.
My wife was born here. She is British. She does not have to conform to 'our' norms. She is one of us. Nationality based on race should be rejected utterly.
You may also want to consider some practicalities. According to you, if my wife acts in a way outside 'British norms' (defined by whom? the State? The crown? the Church? I am British, and no fan of any of these) she should be thrown out of the country - her country - along with her entire family. Would this also apply to our children? At what point do 'they' become 'us'?
A final point which you may like to consider is Britain's impact on the world. In the case of Afro-Caribbean and South Asian immigrants, the vast majority came from countries previously colonised by our armies - giving them both a legal and, frankly, a moral, right to come and try their luck here.
I don't buy this post either. I think it is clumsy, divisive and - sorry - racist; which is not a word I use lightly. It is also extremely un-British. Too much time under Putin has done you ill, I fear.
I'll start with Paul. I can understand, as you don't know me well or my blog, why you would misread my post, take my remarks out of context, ignore the explanatory remarks in the follow up post and call me a racist.
ReplyDeleteYou call it 'clumsy'. It was carefully thought out and I stand "by all points.
"I'm afraid this is entirely ill-thought through and deeply repressive."
Silly comment by you, Paul as you were the one not to read it through. I thought long and hard and modified many times before posting. Readers know I think through my material.
"centuries-long battle to be free of the oppression of our official state religion. Now you want oaths of loyalty sworn to it?"
No, only by those coming into the country, which they do anyway.
"You appear to assume that ;children of immigrants' are not British."
Not in the least. therefore your follow up points hold no water.
"According to you, if my wife acts in a way outside 'British norms'"
Another silly statement. This was neither said nor intimated anywhere in the post.
"In the case of Afro-Caribbean and South Asian immigrants, the vast majority came from countries previously colonised by our armies - giving them both a legal and, frankly, a moral, right to come and try their luck here."
No argument. Now something you might consider, Paul. When I was in London, my girlfriend was Jamaican. I was head of a school which was 30% black. I was never once accused of racism, as you have done here.
Paul, this horse won't run, I'm afraid.
I suggest you read the post carefully. I was suggesting troublemakers, wherever they're from.
You can accuse me of being anti-religious, though, as I do believe the major trouble does stem from a certain religion. A person would have to be an idiot not to see the things which have gone on in the last year alone.
Now to Bag. Deporting the entire family. As I explained in the follow up, there must be some way to get the trouble maker to stop it and family is the most effective method. Suggest a better one and I'll go along with you.
This manifesto is, after all, an ongoing thing and this debate right now will lead to some modifications.
Political Umpire, I agree:
Any other cultures should be welcomed, so long as their values are adapted so as not to be inconsistent with ours. Not just the criminal law, so that the likes of Mr Tai can't (literally) get away with murder, but in a much wider context.
Fair, firm and friendly.
You seem to be in denial here, James. I can see why. Let me quote you at length:
ReplyDelete"Whilst resident in the country, their mores, social norms and the like should loosely conform to those of the native inhabitants. If the main community won't accept them - they either work harder to be accepted or else they depart."
This includes 2nd generation. If the youth take part in street demonstrations and the like, their whole extended family is under threat. It is the job of the family to keep these young malcontents in check."
Here you make several things clear and explicit:
1. That, for immigrants, 'mores, social norms and the like should loosely conform to those of the native inhabitants.'
2. That this applies to the 'second generation' also. In other words, the children of immigrants - like my wife - are not as British as 'us natives'. They must play by different rules, and the punishments for breaking them will be different also.
3. That 'second generation immigrants' - like my wife - can be removed from this country, along with their entire family, if they break the law. This would not apply to you or I, because our parents were not immigrants.
Congratulations: you have invented a two-tier criminal law, and a two-tie version of Britishness. One rule for whitey, one rule for all the others.
Let me make it even clearer: 'second generation immigrants', as you call them, are no such thing. They are British people. They were born here, and they are as British as you or I, regardless of where their parents come from. If my wife indulges in behaviour which you regard as unacceptable, where would you suggest deporting her to? Her 'home'? She was born in Leamington Spa.
This is barely-disguised 'send 'em all back' stuff. You ask me for an alternative: it's called the criminal law, and it already applies to all British subjects, regardless of race or religion.
As for religion - new immigrants do
not 'promise to conform to the official religion'. That's simply nonsense. No British subject is required to 'conform' to the Church of England. We have freedom of religion in this country, and have done since 1832.
As for your coy references to Islam: if you don't like, it, why don't you just say so? I don't either, particularly, but any crimes committed in its name can be dealt with by the criminal justice system, just as all other crimes are. It's called blind justice, and it's supposed to be one of the good things about Britain.
This horse is running free. I did not accuse you of being a racist, but that was a racist post. I suspect it was unintentional, but that just means you need to think it through much harder - as you acknowledged in your later post. Your attitude in particular to the 'second generation' can be nothing but divisive. British is British, regardless of where the parents originate. And rules is rules, as we say over here. That's the British way.
Paul, you're simply repeating your errors again.
ReplyDeleteYou said it was quite frankly racist. So yes you did say it. And no, it was not based on anything written.
You quoted me in the last comment but drew the wrong concludions by persisting in your assumption that 2nd generation immigrants are not native.
They are 2nd generation and native by birth. That's just simple facts. Plus, over and over again, you persist in taking me out of context. That is not scholarly.
If I say "I do not like tomatoes", you can't take "I like tomatoes" from that and use it.
Let me make it clearer for you, Paul. You're obviously having brain cloud through the chip on your shoulder about your wife, whom you insist on bringing into this thing, when she's probably a fine lady and good luck to her.
I said and I quote:
Retaliation is not what I'm writing of here. Nor punishment. Nor incarceration. And yet, those very nasty specimens who preach violence and are trying to overthrow our society cannot be dealt with by a hug and a kiss. Their agenda is otherwise.
Miscreants, Paul. Not your wife.
Now that's a far cry from what you're trying to sheet home to me, which I've repeatedly told you is just not so.
As for:
"No British subject is required to 'conform' to the Church of England."
This is, as you say, nonsense, which is why I never said it. Paul, again and again, I say you wilfully take things out of context.
You say:
And rules is rules, as we say over here. That's the British way.
That's precisely what I've been trying to get through to you. The only horse running free here, Paul, is your imagination and the chip on your shoulder.
Lastly, as for the reference to Islam, you say any crimes can be dealt with under the criminal justice system.
Oh really? I can point to ten blogs immediately which deal with the state of our criminal justice system.
And Paul, don't speak of what 'we do over here'. I'm as British as your lovely wife so it's not necessary.
James, You are right I did not make an alternative clear. It's because I didn't think I needed too. The alternative is you don't deport an entire family for one bad apple. Full stop. The family pressure is already on for them to make their children conform if they know that their offspring will be deported. They have clearly failed at that point.
ReplyDeleteLook at it another way would you be happy to go to prison if your children broke a law. Family is the most effective way after all. If you were going to go to prison for what your offspring did at any time in their life then you would not have any. And you would not be the only one.
As for second generation. You are now responsible for a child you may never have seen or met. Talk about sins of the father.
You get punished according to laid down rules that you break. Not what anybody else breaks. Anything else is just not Justice.
Just imagine that these rules would be applied to you..
It is also interesting that under our version of democracy all that these people need to do is wait and the sandal will be on the other foot so to speak. Of course they won't deport us when a nice sharp blade will do. We need a constitution that enshrines our rules and does not change at a spineless politicians whim. Of course it needs to cover basic rights. Perhaps if you started there and then laid this alongside you would see that many things in here are not right.
That's the scenario the post addresses - these sorts of people, as distinct from the ones who do:
ReplyDelete...get on with their own lives...
The ones who do let one alone don't need a manifesto.
So why are you wanting to haul them in for bi-monthly interviews with the local authority if they're from the wrong part of the world or proposing to deport them if their grandson gets up to no good?
Notsaussure, look, there is a situation in Britain which is not good. Winfred put it this way:
ReplyDeleteWe all know that most legal immigrants are decent people who assimilate into the societies to which they immigrate.
We all know that there is one group of immigrants who whether they immigrated legally of illegally are attempting to force their religion onto the citizens of the countries they invade.
That's it. And Political Umpire:
Any other cultures should be welcomed, so long as their values are adapted so as not to be inconsistent with ours. Not just the criminal law, so that the likes of Mr Tai can't (literally) get away with murder, but in a much wider context.
That's all. Trying to make out that there is not nor ever was a 'British society' is codswallop. There always been a 'Britishness', just as ther's been a Frenchness. 2nd generation migrants generally embrace that. Some don't, as Winfred said.
Hence 7/7.
I'm appalled myself that this has been swept under the carpet in this debate which has focussed on me rather than on the issue.
The security services know full well that the trouble stems from the mosques. Strangely, it doesn't seem to come out of the churches and synagogues.
The business of deportation - did I not say it should be on a case-by-case basis? Look at who would handle it anyway.
The alternative?
As Paul said: it's called the criminal law, and it already applies to all British subjects, regardless of race or religion.
What Paul does not say is that means incarceration, fines or monitoring. Now that is wasting state resources on people who don't deserve it.
That money would be better off going to the poor or elderly who haven't done anything to undermine the society.
It's a simple principle - if you refuse to assimilate, don't come here and don't expect to stay.
We all know that there is one group of immigrants who whether they immigrated legally of illegally are attempting to force their religion onto the citizens of the countries they invade. American Mormons, do you mean? 'Attempting to force their religion' is maybe putting it a bit strongly, but they've several times knocked on my door asking me if I'm interested in joining their religion. No Muslim's even done so much as that to me. Maybe I'm just lucky.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that there's such a thing as British society. Measures such as you propose -- fortnightly interviews with people from suspect countries to ascertain their continuing loyalty, punishing extended families for the misdeeds of one of their members and having a multi-tier criminal justice system depending on where you (or your parents) are from is completely alien to it. One of the fundamental principles of British law is that everyone is equal before it, and that means the penalties for breaking it are equal, too.
Why on earth do you want to import such foreign -- and utterly obnoxious to our British traditions -- ways of doing things?
The Australians and Americans have come up with a very wacky swap deal. We are going to take some of the Cubans and Haitians and they are going to get some Sri Lankans and other undesirables. Very odd. Seems to me it will encourage people to come to Australia in the hope that they can get to the US.
ReplyDeleteOn another matter Australia puts most of the illegal immigrants in detention camps either on the mainland or on Nauru or Christmas Island. They have a lot of excess capacity and cost a fortune to build and maintain. Perhaps there is a business opportunity. Australia can get back into the convict business.
Is this a wind up James? One of those polemic things?
ReplyDelete"A final point which you may like to consider is Britain's impact on the world. In the case of Afro-Caribbean and South Asian immigrants, the vast majority came from countries previously colonised by our armies - giving them both a legal and, frankly, a moral, right to come and try their luck here."
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone have a moral right to goto England? (heh)
I don't agree with quite a few points of James post, but I agree that he has the right to believe that :)
(I vehemently disagree on the religion thing, of course I want everyone to be a Christian, but I am an American through and through and I support freedom from state religion)
In this whole thing, UKDP was closest to it:
ReplyDeleteIs this a wind up James? One of those polemic things?
Yes, of course it was. Not secretly - I stated it as such when I said it was ongoing at the end of the post.
In order to understand the issue more fully, it needed to be discussed. It was never going to be discussed unless strng views were put.
I think Colin understood the spirit of the thing. Notsaussure didn't. By the way, 'bi-mothly' was meant to mean every two months - my terminological inaccuracy here, I'm afraid.
I don't hold strong views on immigration but I do on extremism. Notsaussure mentions mormons [think he means 7th day adventists].
The diffeence, NSS is that one inconveniences you and the other is exhorting people to kill you.
You say you've not seen it at your door. They're not at your door - they're at the mosque and in the street.
I don't like extremism, pure and simple and if you wish to talk about the British way, that is the British way - to dislike it.
Thank you to all who commented on this but possibly it's now run its course.
This is bizarre in the extreme. You simply won't reply to any of my points.
ReplyDeleteI quoted directly, twice, from your post - you denied the quotes existed. How does that work?
You have completely failed to answer any of the points I've raised about the 'second generation' - an issue which you made very explicit in your post, and which I then responded to by raising some obvious problems with it.
You clearly stated that the children of immigrants should be deported to their parents home country if they take part in illegal demonstrations. Now that the absurdity of this has been pointed out to several posters you are denying you said it! You simply resort, instead, to insults about chips on shoulders.
As for my wife - I 'bring her into it' because you have just proposed a new law which threatens to deport her if she takes part in illegal demonstrations, along with her entire family. Although you now seem to be denying that too.
You also said - and I quoted directly, again - that new immigrants are required to conform to the Church. It's there in black and white. Now you're denying that too.
If you can't stick to your guns and answer questions that arise from your ideas, why write them down?
Oh no - hang on - suddenly it's all 'a wind up'. Of course.
I can see why you want to close this thread now. I would suggest, though, that the next time you propose such a radical and controversial list of new laws and regulations, that you are prepared to defend them in the blogosphere rather than sidestepping any awkward questions which arise from the bits you didn't think about properly.
Paul, I've answered all your points but if you insist on taking me out of context and ascribing things not there, thee's not much I can do about you, old chap.
ReplyDeleteIn three posts on the matter your points weredirectly answered. How many more times do you need?
There is no sidestepping. I am consistent to my original premise. Let me repeat it one more time for the obtuse. I directly quote:
"This is an officially Christian country which tolerates denominations other than Anglicans. It is a measure of the British that we do. So extreme scenarios don't wash here."
"It's a first manifesto, which I stated at the end is modifiable to changed circumstances."
"Again, extreme scenarios are not what were being discussed."
What is bizare here Paul, is that you seem incapable of reading English.
So be it.
'Extreme measures were not what was being discussed'?!?!? Deporting ther children of immigrants? Requirements to 'keep quiet' about any religion other than Anglicanism? Holding camps? Not supporting foreign sports teams? I shiver when I wonder what your definition of 'extreme' is.
ReplyDeleteJames, please answer me this one question, directly, now. Please don't refer me back to something you may or may not have said earlier. Please just answer it:
Do you, or do you not, believe that the children of immigrants should be deported from the country if they commit what you would consider to be an extreme crime?
Probably doesn't mean as much in the EU.
ReplyDeleteThe status of the parents should decide on the deportation of children (2nd gen.) during extreme criminal cases.
If the parents are legal immigrants, the children should be given full citizenship rights and treated simply as 'home-grown' criminals. If the parents are illegal, the children (2nd gen.) should be considered illegal in extreme criminal cases and deported.
James, Personally I like reading discussions such as this. I'm more than happy to participate as well. I think that the manifesto started well and them went too radical. Of course, your intention to stimulate debate worked but probably not quite the way you expected. I think you shot yourself in the foot here though.
ReplyDeleteTHOUGH THIS PARTICULAR THREAD IS NOW DECLARED CLOSED, THE DISCUSSION NEED NOT BE. IT'S SIMPLY TRANSFERRED TO A NEW POST:
ReplyDeletehttp://nourishingobscurity.blogspot.com/
2007/04/immigration-post-reviewed-comments.html
SO THAT WHEN THIS ONE GOES TO ARCHIVE, IT WON'T BE LOST, ALL RIGHT?