Blackbright News - Windrush Edition

Black - Bright

News

Issue 55

WINDRUSH EDITION

R U O Y L L E S U O Y ?

D A DI S I V A R O F L U SO t r o p s s a P h s i t i r B e h t t u o b A AW A L N O I T A R G I M M I O T S E G N CHA

Editorial Rant

I guess investigation starts when you show up on the system as being born outside England, regardless of whether you came over as a Commonwealth Citizen, with a right to remain.

Being born in the UK, spending several years in the states where I enjoyed diplomatic status and excellent insurance benefits, I never had to worry whether I would be accepted in a specific country, denied health care, or a roof over my head.

Albert Thompson worked, paid tax and national insurance; the only difference is that he wasn’t born in the UK, and that is what now determines who can access health services, pensions and housing. Even if children are born in the UK, if their parents are not, they could find themselves self-deported if they decide to leave the country.

I have learned so much since this Windrush controversy. If I become like an ostrich and stick my head in the sand, the elements will attack the rest of my body, and by that, I mean, I can ignore what is going on, but it will come to bite me on the bum, if members of my wider family and friends are affected. Hence, the reason for this special Windrush edition.

So when, in the latter part of 2016, I saw videos of people being deported to Jamaica, I didn’t understand. At first I thought deportees had committed crimes, but then I heard it included the elderly who had not kept papers or filed for naturalisation, who were being deported, and I started to pay attention. How could pensioners be deported to a country they had not been back to for decades from a country they had invested 25% of their lives in? It then came to light that those who had a right to remain, on visiting the Caribbean on holiday, were not being allowed back under self-deportation legislation, in the 2014 Act.

Albert Thompson, lived in Britain for 44 years and had prostrate cancer.

However, the Hostile Environment Policy meant that because he couldn’t provide the required documents to prove he had a right to remain, he was told that he had to pay £54,000, if he wanted to access treatment from the health service.

When I came across the video in February 2018, of Albert Thompson (real name Sylvester Marshall) telling his viewers that he had been in the country for over 44 years, paid his national insurances and taxes, and had worked all his life, but had been denied cancer treatment, unless he paid £54,000.00, because he could not prove citizenship, I was horrified.

Theresa May, whose political aim was to reduce net migration to below 100k, agreed that a Hostile Environment Policy was necessary to increase the number of enforced removals of immigrants each year, and prevent the undocumented from accessing services. However, while she claims to sympathise with Albert Thompson’s dilemma, she would not intervene because Thompson needed to “evidence his settled status” in the UK.

Many of us, have taken the NHS for granted. We turn up, we get seen to and we get to go back home if we’re lucky. We don’t think of taking our wallet with us, proof of identity, or insurance, like in the United States, we turn up provide our name, date of birth and address, which idenitfies us and we get treated. Come to think of it though, when I called emergency a couple of months ago, they didn’t ask me for proof of who I was.

1

So why is it - after 44 years of living and working in this country, accessing all the benefits of a citizen, that in 2011, Thompson could no longer access health services?

Well, the 2011 census showed approximately 70% of the population increase was due to foreign-born immigration. 7.5m

did you know

Editorial Rant

1. Did you know that Jamaican Immigrants were welcomed by Royal Airforce (RAF) officials in 1948, following their arrival in the UK on the ship ‘Empire Windrush’

Windrush - Did You Know?

Albert Thompson ‘Left to Die’

2. Did you know that Enoch Powell encouraged immigration from the Caribbean and the Asian continent during his 19601962 tenure, as Health Minister?

Changes to Immigration Law

3. Did you know that the UK government ‘quietly’ deleted the clause that protected commonwealth citizens who came to the UK between 1948 - 1973, from the statute book, so that it did not appear in the 2014 and 2016 Immigration Policy, which is why the Windrush Generation have been affected?

Solicitor’s Plea to Immigrants History of the Passport

4. Did you know that the Home Office, is refusing to put the clause back because they say that there is adequate protection in place for people who were granted an indefinite right to remain as opposed to those who were given atemporary right to remain?

David Lammy’s Speech Blackbright News

ISSN No. 1751-1909

5. Did you know that the Hostile Environment Policy came into force in 2014?

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

www.blackbrightcommunityservices.com Blackbright News is a not-for-profit Publication

6. Did you know several commonwealth citizens who lived in the UK for decades are now being threatened with removal because they cannot provide the paperwork required by the Home Office?

Myrna Loy, Founder & Managing Editor

(Logo designed by Flo Awolaja; photos extracted from Stock Photos/Google Images, except where supplied)

7. Did you know that no paperwork was required from Windrush migrants, prior to 1971, because they were classed as British Subjects and later British Citizens?

FOR PREVIOUS ISSUES PLEASE VISIT

www.issuu.com/blackbrightnews PRINTED BY MIXAM (UK) LIMITED

Paypal: blackbrightnews@gmail.com

2

8.

Did you know it is the responsibility for

an individual to prove that they were resident in the UK before 1 January 1973, which is the date the 1971 Immigration Act came into force?

people (11.9% of the population at the time) were born overseas, so it was decided that something had to be done about it. The UK government discreetly deleted a key protection clause that would have protected the Windrush generation. The protection clause was contained in the 1999 Immigration & Asylum Act, when they ratified the 2014 & 2016 Immigration Act. The 2014 Immigration Act is the one that contains the Hostile Environment clause.

9. Did you know that the Hostile Environment Policy, is to make the UK a hostile place for Immigrants?

The UK Home Office’s hostile environment policy is a set of administrative and legislative measures designed to make staying in the United Kingdom as difficult as possible for people without leave to remain, in the hope that they may “self deport”. However, even those who leave the country and go on holiday, who are born in the UK, but born of foreign parents, are finding it difficult to get back into the UK. The 1981 Immigration Act saw to that, while the 2014 Act enabled it to be enforced. By refusing those who left the country to re-enter, they can report it as ‘self-deportation’.

10. Did you know that the Hostile Environment Policy forces ‘immigrants’ to prove their right to reside in the UK, affecting their rights to rent somewhere to live; to access healthcare, or apply for a driving licence? By penalising the public and private sector with heavy fines if they haven’t checked all the documentation, they are forcing them to do the work of the Home Office by becoming enforcers of immigration control.

Technically, the UK had no obligation to naturalise Thompson because he arrived in the UK after 1974. It was only people who arrived in the UK prior to 1971 who were deemed British Citizens by the Immigration Act 1948. So he is fortunate that the decision was overturned and he was granted access to healthcare. However, anyone who entered the UK after 1973, who are not properly documented, they may not be so lucky.

11. Did you know that a public space was created in the heart of Brixton, called Windrush Square?

12. Did You Know that Windrush Square was constructed in order to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first wave of immigrants?

I fully concur that illegal immigrants should be deported, but what I worry about is those who attempt to enforce the law but have their own definition of what an illegal immigrant is (whether legal or illegal) and have no experience or knowledge of previous acts of parliament so are detaining, deporting and damaging people’s lives out of ignorance and misinformation.

13. Did you know that 492 individuals formed the British African-Caribbean community. They arrived in 1948 at Tilbury Docks on the Empire Windrush from Jamaica and were temporarily housed in the Clapham South deep shelter?

Any Comments? Please write to the Editor at blackbrightnews@gmail.com Perceived Definition of an Immigrant: ‘Anyone who is not white and/or who has an accent’ .

3

14. Did you know that on 21 May 2018, the UK’s 1st Memorial, honouring two million black men and women who served Britain in the 1st and 2nd World Wars, was unveiled at Windrush Square in Brixton? In 1919, when there was a victory March through London, black people were not invited, so they were written out of the history of the 1st world war. Now they have finally received recognition for their contribution, albeit overdue.

Changes to immigration legislation over the years Aliens Act 1905

In addition:

This targeted “undesirable aliens” - such as paupers, lunatics, vagrants and prostitutes - who could be refused entry.

Mothers as well as fathers were allowed to pass on British citizenship to their children.

The term Commonwealth citizen was used to replace British subject. Under the Act, the term British subject was restricted to certain persons holding British nationality through connections with British India or the Republic of Ireland before 1949.

British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914

This granted the common status of British subject upon those persons who had specified connections with the Crown’s dominions.

Right of Abode could no longer be acquired by non-British citizens. A limited number of Commonwealth citizens holding Right of Abode were allowed to retain it.

British Nationality Act 1948

The Empire’s dominions each adopted their separate citizenships, but retained the common status of British subject.

The rights of Commonwealth and Irish citizens to become British citizens by registration were removed and instead they were to be expected to apply for naturalisation if they wanted to acquire British citizenship. Irish citizens, however, who were, or claim British subject nationality retain their right to acquire British citizenship nationality through registration.[2]

Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968

This required certain potential migrants to supply proof that either they, their parents or grandparents had been born in Britain.

Immigration Act 1971

Commonwealth citizens lost their automatic right to remain in the UK, meaning they faced the same restrictions as those from elsewhere. They would in future only be allowed to remain in UK after they had lived and worked here for five years.

Immigration Act 1988

This act ensured that only one wife or widow of a polygamous marriage had a right to enter the country.

It also ensured people with freedom of movement in the European Community did not need leave to enter or remain in the UK.

A partial “right of abode” was introduced, lifting all restrictions on immigrants with a direct personal or ancestral connection with Britain.

Asylum and Immigration Act 1996

Immigration Act 1981

It became a criminal offence to employ anyone unless they had permission to live and work in the UK.

Before 1 July 2006, a child whose natural father was not married to his natural mother at the time of his birth could not obtain British citizenship through his father, and even then, this application could only be made before the child turned 18. Under the Immigration Act 1981, persons over 18 born before 1 July 2006, to unmarried British fathers are able to register as British citizens.

The Act also modified the application of the right of anyone born in Great Britan, to nationality or citizenship. Prior to the 1981 Immigration Act coming into force, any person born in the United Kingdom (with limited exceptions such as children of diplomats and enemy aliens) was entitled to British citizenship. After the Act came into force, it was necessary for at least one parent of a United Kingdom-born child to be a British citizen or “settled” in the United Kingdom (a permanent resident).

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

The act removed benefits from asylum seekers and created the National Asylum Service to house them, taking pressure off local authorities.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

This created the first English test and citizenship exam for immigrants and introduced measures against bogus marriages.

Asylum and Immigration Act 2004

4

This act introduced a single form of appeal that remains to this day and made it a criminal offence to destroy travel documents. It limited access to support for those told to leave the UK.

Immigration Legislation Contd/...

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006

be appealed from 17 to 4; deport foreign criminals first and hear their appeal later; restricting the ability of immigration detainees to apply repeatedly for bail if they have previously been refused it.

A five-tier points system for awarding entry visas was created.

Those refused work or study visas had their rights of appeal limited.

It will be made more difficult for illegal immigrants to live in the UK by: requiring private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants, to prevent those with no right to live in the UK from accessing private rented housing; making it easier for the Home Office to recover unpaid civil penalties; prohibiting banks from opening current accounts for migrants identified as being in the UK unlawfully, by requiring banks to check against a database of known immigration offenders before opening accounts; introducing new powers to check driving licence applicants’ immigration status before issuing a licence and revoking licences where immigrants are found to have overstayed in the UK.

The act brought in on-the-spot fines of £2,000, payable by employers for each illegal employee, which could include parents taking on nannies without visas.

UK Borders Act 2007

This provided the UK Border Agency with powers to tackle illegal working and automatically deport some foreign nationals imprisoned for specific offences, or for more than one year.

It gave immigration officers police-like powers, such as increased detention and a search-and-entry roles.

The act brought in the power to create compulsory biometric cards for non-EU immigrants.

Preventing Sham Marriages by: increasing the marriage and civil partnership notice period to 28 days in England and Wales and allow for it to be extended to 70 days, where intelligencebased risk profiles and factors or other relevant information establish that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a marriage or civil partnership is a sham.

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 This act amended the rules so people from outside the European Economic Area had to have residential status for eight years before being eligible for naturalisation.

Those seeking naturalisation through wedlock had to be married for five years first.

Notices of marriage or civil partnership involving a non-EEA national will be referred to the Home Office where that person could gain an immigration advantage from the marriage or civil partnership. This will apply where the non-EEA national does not have settled status or an EU law right of permanent residence in the UK and is not exempt from immigration control or holding a marriage or civil partnership visa.

The act also allowed immigration and customs officers to perform some of each other’s roles and imposed a duty on home secretaries to safeguard children.

Immigration Act 2014

Disqualified persons by immigration status and changed Residential tenancy agreement making it difficult for illegal immigrants to rent property or lease premises; and imposed stiff penalty notices on landlords and employers, preventing them from obtaining work.

Immigration Act 2016 Illegal Working

The offence of ‘illegal working’ now has harsher punishments. Employers of illegal migrants who had ‘reasonable cause to believe’ they are working illegally can now receive a custodial sentence of up 5 years – an increase from 2 years. Reducing the threshold from ‘knowing’ to ‘reasonable cause to believe’ could mean more convictions.

In addition, it: Increased powers to: collect and check fingerprints; search for passports; to implement embarkation controls; examine the status and credibility of migrants seeking to marry or enter into civil partnership.

made it easier to remove and deport illegal immigrants by: cutting the number of decisions that can

5

The new offence can also see the earnings of

workers seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Access to services restricted further:

Private Renting - In further efforts to prevent undocumented migrants from accessing services, civil fines in the private rental sector have been extended and now include criminal offences. The previous maximum fine of £3,000 has been extended to an unlimited fine or a sentence of up to 5 years.

Driving – It is now an offence to drive in the UK without valid leave to remain. The Home Office will also be able to search and seize driving licenses of those who do not have leave to remain.

ALBERT THOMPSON - “Free At Last!”

After 9 years battling with the Home Office, Sylvester Marshall, the Windrush victim who was denied NHS treatment for his cancer, has been given permanent right to remain in the UK.

Bank Accounts – It’s now illegal for people without valid leave to remain, to have a bank account.

Banks will be required to make regular immigration status checks and people without valid leave may have their bank accounts frozen or be required to report to the Home Office.

Sylvester (who was known as Albert Thompson to maintain anonymity as he pursued his immigration status) got in touch with the Windrush taskforce, which was set up in 2018, to deal with those affected by the Windrush immigration scandal.

Adapted from www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics

Sylvester, who is 63 years old, came out of the Immigration Headquarters beaming, and according to the Guardian Newspaper, he was waving a piece of paper confirming his right to remain in the UK.

Marshall said he felt free for the first time in years. I can imagine how he felt, because until I got my diplomatic immunity in the United States, I too, was looking over my shoulder, wondering if someone was going to pat me on the shoulder and tell me its time to go back to the UK. I know what he means when he says: “Now I can relax.”

Blackbright News 6

Stimulates (by igniting interest) Motivates (by encouraging action) Educates (by sharing information)

Solicitors want to contact those affected by Windrush Scandal Dear Sirs, We write in relation to the recent Windrush scandal that has been going on in the United Kingdom which has affected many people who came to this country from the Caribbean Islands, including Jamaica many years ago.

Our Public Law team already represents clients who may have been affected. We would like to investigate further and we would like to enquire whether you are in touch with any people who may have been removed from the UK and/or are unable to re-enter.

We are considering bringing a class action against the UK government regarding any potential unlawful removal with a view to bringing those persons back to the UK and potentially pursue compensation for them.

If there is any way you can assist, we would be most grateful.

Please contact either Toufique Hossain or Rohena Wallace, who are both Directors and Solicitors within the Public Law department. Their contact details are as follows: Toufique: ToufiqueH@Duncanlewis.com (Tel: 02031141128); Rohena: Rohenaw@Duncanlewis.com (Tel: 02031141153) We thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Doris Dela, Caseworker DDI: 02031141258 Fax: 020 7923 3320 Branch: Harrow

7

“LAWD, ME CYANN TAN H’IT INNA H’ENGLAN” (The Cry of a Migrant) by Myrna Loy

Boarding the bus the other day, a burley black woman blocked my way.

Wobbling into an already delegated seat, she planted her load *between two white ladies; she snarled and then snorted as if ready to bore into the two women sitting each side of her.

Just a the bus started pulling off, out of her mouth emanated a laugh... she then started to wheeze, and on blowing her nose, she nervously bawled out the tales of her woes:

While they were waiting to dismount the bus, I overheard their conversation: “Was she on about us?”

“Yes”, said the other, “Ungrateful blacks, they come over here without clothes on their backs, using Social Security1 to live a life of luxury, and most of them fill up our council flats. The government don’t care about you and me - us whites are the proper beneficiaries - I know most of them wogs live off the dole, ain’t interested in working or playing their role; they go on complaining, it gets on my nerves - have you heard about that discrimination thing? I think its absurd!

No more ‘baa-baa black sheep’, or gollywogs on jam, because these coloureds call it “discrimination”.

“Lawd me cyann tan h’it inna h’Englan’ dis country a go bring me down, Me waan fe go back a me country, but not h’even a penny me own Me seh, me cyann tan h’it in a h’Englan’ is where oonoo get dis wedda from?

H’it kill off me husban’ and me one girl chile, and leave me wid no-one fe go reconcile.

Dem do h’awtopsy pon me one pickiney, an certify h’t as cot dett but me know seh nutting don’ go so, a de cole wedda tek her last brett.

De same way h’t lick out me husban’ Clawd, him wouldbe alive now if him did back a yard, but we leave way a Jamaica, fe come yah, tink seh de life would be betta. But de life no betta, it wuss, dat is why we have fe cuss.

Have you ever heard such a load of s**t? they make their beds, they can lie in it, not come over here to complain about our weather, what’s a bit of rain?

You know what I think the government should do? Send those monkeys back to the zoo!

I sat back and shook my head, they hadn’t understood a word she had said.

They had translated her orientation as an attack on their country, and so they fought back... with vicious words and an unrelenting heart, that avenging scourge that permeates that part of our people, making them understand, that their contribution to the economy has meant nothing to man.

Dem cutt off me electricity dis morning, widdout so much as a warning, Dem mek police come fe arress me, becaw dem seh de rent don’ pay...

No wonder dem seh me a turn mad becaw de people dem treat me too bad.

The tremor in her voice caused the *sandwich to fumble, but the sizzling filling continued her grumble:

1

Social Security is the equivalent of welfare.

“Woy me cyaan tan h’it inna h’Englan’ Me waan fe go back to me people dem.”

The two women limped away from her side, obviously deciding to discontinue their ride.

A poem composed by Myrna Loy and published in her book “Poetry’s Promise” available on Amazon.

8

David Lammy address to parliament on Monday 30 April 2018, on the Windrush Petition.

My speech from the debate on the Windrush petition today:

I am proud to stand here on behalf of the 178,000 people who signed this petition.

I am proud to stand here on behalf of the 492 British citizens who arrived on HMT Empire Windrush from Jamaica 70 years ago.

As Stuart Hall put it: “I am the sugar at the bottom of the English cup of tea”.

I am proud to stand here on behalf of the 172,000 British citizens who arrived on these shores between the passage of the 1948 Nationality Act and the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, including my own father who arrived from Guyana in 1956.

And then 70 years ago as Britain lay in ruins after the Second World War the call went out to the colonies from the Mother Country. Britain asked the Windrush generation to come and rebuild the country. Work in our National Health Service. Work on the buses and the trains and as cleaners and security guards. So once again, labour was used.

But it is a very dark episode in our nation’s history that this petition was even required.

It is a very dark day indeed that we are here in Parliament having to stand up for the rights of people who have always given so much to this country and expected so little in return.

They faced the ‘No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish’ signs.

They did the jobs nobody else would do. They got spat on in the street. Assaulted by the Teddy Boys, the skinheads, the National Front. Lived 5 to a room in Rachmanite squalor. They were called and they served but, my God, did they suffer for the privilege of coming to Britain.

We need to remember our history. In Britain when we talk about slavery we tend to just talk about its abolition.

The Windrush story does not begin in 1948. The Windrush story begins in the 17th century, when British slave traders stole 12 million Africans from their homes, took them to the Caribbean, sold them into slavery to work on plantations.

And yet my God they triumphed too. Sir Trevor McDonald. Frank Bruno. Sir Lenny Henry. Jessica-Ennis Hill.

National treasures.

Knights of the realm. Heavyweight champions of the world and Olympic champions wrapped in the British flag. Sons and daughters of the Windrush generation, as British as they come.

The wealth of this country was built on the backs of the Windrush generation’s ancestors.

We are here, because you were there.

And after all of this the Government wants to send us back across the ocean. They want to make life “hostile” for the Windrush children. They strip them of their rights, they deny them healthcare, they kick them out of jobs, they make them homeless, they stop their benefits; and they are imprisoned in their own country. Centuries after their ancestors were shackled and taken across the ocean in slave ships, pensioners are imprisoned in their own country.

My ancestors were British subjects. But they were not British subjects because they came to Britain. They were British subjects because Britain came to them, took them across the Atlantic, colonised them, sold them into slavery, profited from their labour and made them British subjects. That is why I am here. That is why the Windrush generation are here.

There is no British history without the history of the Empire.

It is a disgrace. And it happened here because we don’t

9

remember our history.

On ‘Prime Minister’s Questions’ (in April 2018) the Prime Minister said: “We owe it to them and the British people”.

The Home Secretary said that the Windrush generation should be considered British. That they should be able to get their British citizenship if they so choose.

This is the point the Government simply still do not understand. The Windrush generation ARE the British people. They ARE British citizens. They came here as citizens. That is the precise reason why this is such an injustice. Their British citizenship is, and has always been, theirs by right. It is not something that the Government is now choosing to grant them. Can I remind the Government of Chapter 56 of the 1948 British Nationality Act.

Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.

The Bill uses the term British nationality by virtue of citizenship. I read this Bill again last week when reading over the case notes of my constituents caught up in the Windrush crisis.

Patrick Henry. A British citizen. Arrived in Britain in 1959. A teaching assistant who told me “I feel like a prisoner who has committed no crime” because he is being denied citizenship.

Clive Smith. A British citizen. Arrived here in 1964, showed the Home Office his school reports and still threatened with deportation.

Rosario Wilson. A British citizen. No right to be here because St Lucia became independent in 1979.

Wilberforce Sullivan. A British citizen. Paid taxes for 40 years. He was told in 2011 he was no longer able to work.

Dennis Laidley. A British citizen. Tax records going back to the 1960s. Denied a passport and unable to visit his sick mother.

Jeffrey Greaves. A British citizen. Arrived here in 1964.

Threatened with deportation by the Home Office.

Cecile Laurencin. A British citizen. 44 years of National Insurance contribution letters, payslips and bank account details. Application for naturalisation rejected.

Huthley Sealey. A British citizen. Unable to claim benefits or access healthcare.

Mark Balfourth. A British citizen. Arrived here in 1962 aged 7. Refused access to benefits.

The Windrush generation have waited for too long for the rights that are theirs. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over. There comes a time when the burden of living like a criminal in your own country becomes too heavy to bear any longer. That is what we have seen in the last few weeks – an outpouring of pain and grief built up over many years.

And yet Government Ministers have tried to conflate this issue with illegal immigration.

The Home Secretary said “I am personally committed to tackling illegal migration”, making it difficult for illegal migrants to live here and removing people who are here illegally”. Indeed, during her statement the Home Secretary said “illegal” 23 times but did not even once say the word “citizen”.

This is not about illegal immigration. This is about British citizens. And frankly it is deeply offensive to conflate the Windrush generation with illegal immigrants to try to distract from the Windrush crisis.

This is about a hostile environment policy that blurs the lines between illegal immigrants and people who are here legally and even British citizens. This is about a hostile environment not just for illegal immigrants that but for anybody who looks like they could be an immigrant.

This is about a hostile environment that has turned employers, doctors, landlords and social workers into border guards. The hostile environment is not about illegal immigration.

Increasing Leave to Remain fees by 238% in 4 years is not about illegal immigration

The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have promised compensation. They have promised that no enforcement action will be taken. They have promised that the “burden of proof” will be lowered when the taskforce is assessing Windrush cases.

The Windrush citizens don’t trust the Home Office and I don’t blame them. After so much injustice they need justice.

I quote Martin Luther King who himself quoted St Augustine when he said that an unjust law is no law at all. So I say to the Minister: warm words mean nothing. Guarantee these rights and enshrine them in law.

And 230 years after the Abolitionist movement wore their medallions, I stand here as a Caribbean, Black, British citizen and I ask the Minister on behalf of thousands of Windrush citizens:

The Home Office making profits of 800% on standard applicants is not about illegal immigration

The Home Office sending back documents unrecorded in second class post so passports, birth certificates and education certificates get lost is not about illegal immigration

Am I Not a Man and a Brother?

(David Lammy, British Labour Party Politician)

Charging teenagers £2,033 for limited every 30 months is not about illegal immigration

Charging someone £10,521 in limited leave to remain fees before they can even apply for indefinite leave to remain is not about illegal immigration Banning refugees and asylum seekers from working and preventing them from accessing public funds is not about illegal immigration.

Sending 9 immigration enforcement staff to arrest my constituent because the Home Office lost his documents is not about illegal immigration

Locking my constituent up in Yarl’s Wood so she missed her Midwifery exams is not about illegal immigration Denying legal aid to migrants who are here legally is not about illegal immigration

Changing the terms of young asylum seekers’ “immigration bail” so they cannot study is not about illegal immigration

Sending immigration enforcement staff to a church in my constituency serving soup to refugees is not about illegal immigration

LADY LOY ON REGGAE FRIDAYS 19h - 21h GMT

11

SELLING YOUR SOUL FOR A MARRIAGE LICENCE (Nancy Noder) Copyright © 2002 “De British gal dem fool yuh see… if you go a Englan’ you will fine one fe married to yu and look after you, h’an yuh wih get yuh stay – dem desperate fih we”

This was the perception of Black British women (BBW), in the 80s and 90s. West-Indians had seen so many of their ‘bredren’ come over to England, find wives and subsequently get their stay.

Sociologists claim that black people do not think strategically, they seek instant gratification, and this was the case when Caribbean men charmed their way into the lives of unsuspecting Black British women, who were not used to such passion, attention and charm.

For the BBW’s it was a win-win situation. The majority of Black British Men (BBM’s) during the in 70s – 90s, would not propose to BBW’s or if they did, it was after they had been in a relationship for several years. It wasn’t unusual for many of them to have a common-law wife for 15 years sometimes longer, and the question of marriage never arose, so if it wasn’t for the Caribbean ‘Saviours’ , many BBW’s would remain ‘on the shelf’ or would have to settle for a white man.

Regardless of how black women in Britain have evolved academically, emotionally and financially, the old-fashioned stigma of not being married was daunting, especially for those in their thirties and older, many of whom had never been married.

Many Caribbean men saw the marriage as a reason to get their stay in the UK, and the Black British woman saw the connection as a way of getting a legitimate husband, who she was not going to let go so easily.

Similarly, many women from the Caribbean, Africa and Asia fell pregnant for Black British Men, because they believed that by having a child in the UK, it would grant them the right to stay in the country, because they were parents of British children. However, the 1981 Immigration Act knocked that on the head!

I am sure the Home Office thought that these were sham marriages. A sham marriage implies that both parties enter the marriage fraudently, but that was not the case. The majority of the BBW’s who married men from abroad genuinely believed that it was a legitimate marriage at the time, and believed that they had a husband who loved them. Jamaican

men, in particular, were skilled at showing ‘love’ and adoration, in a way, that a BBW had never experienced from her British counterpart, so for BBW’s who had been deprived of passion and a husband, the Caribbean men were a God-send.

I don’t think Caribbean men realized how difficult it would be to divorce their wives, so that they could start life with someone they really loved. I don’t think that BBW’s realized the emotional strain of playing second fiddle to all and sundry and acquiring a husband who was not in a position to support her because of work restrictions, or because of an irresponsible attitude.

During early 1980s, because women knew the legacy of singledom for BBW’s, when a BBW announced she was getting married, it was viewed with sceptism. They would be asked “so where is your husband from then?” and if they responded with any of the Caribbean islands (especially Jamaica) eyes would roll, insinuating that it was a bogus marriage - one that wouldn’t last. However, I would bet my bottom dollar that 9 out of 10 BBW’s who married a non-Brit (especially a Jamaican) believed that his feelings for her were genuine at the time.

When the married Caribbean man subsequently meets someone he really cares for and wants to commit to his new love, but can’t - it is at this point that he realises he has sold his soul, because he is left in a situation where if he leaves his wife for the woman he has fallen in love with, it will jeopardise his visa status.

Many of these marriages could have worked out, if they had developed genuine relationships in the first place,

After the two years was up, calculated Caribbean men, became restless; they had done their time; they had been given their indefinite stay – there was no reason for them to remain loyal, and marrying women who they had superficial feelings for became frustrating. By this time, the BBWs realised that the sceptism of friends was justified, and decided that the best tactic was to make their husbands feel obligated to them, especially if she felt she had been ‘played’, so threats of deportation became the norm for many scorned or disgruntled BBW’s. Jamaican men, who had sacrificed their pride and dignity for a visa found themselves (ironically) in a hostile environment.

They became victims of emotional, psychological, financial (and sometimes) physical abuse). Most rebelled by seeing other women, while others up and left, sacrificing their stay to return back to the Caribbean.

For many BBWs, marriage to a non-Brit in the 80s, was far from a fairy-tale. Caribbean men (in particular) were renowned for infidelity, and while some BBWs would try to put up with it to save their marriage, in a lot of cases, it was just too much, and she was left feeling used, disappointed and angry. Some reported their husbands to the Home Office when they discovered infidelity and children outside the marriage, while others cut their losses.

instead of behaving myopically and not considering the long-term implications of their selfish actions.

So now I ask the question, was it worth selling your soul for a marriage licence? Are there any BBWs who got married to non-Brits for a visa, in the 70s, 80s & 90s who are still married?

Note: I do realise that the plight of getting a British stay did not only apply to Caribbeans, but happened widely in the Asian and African community, but this was written in 2002, when I witnessed it first-hand.

Email: blackbrightnews@gmail.com Subject: ‘ Still Married’

13

Blackbright News is a FREE publication, however donations from £1 upwards are appreciated, and can be paid via Paypal blackbrightnews@gm ail.com, GDPR - Please send your email address.

blackbright community services ltd (An Out-of-Hours Social Enterprise & Counselling Service) for Those Abused By Power & Trust

Studio 20, LU5 5TF Tel: 01582 721 605 Mob: 07957 540 899 Email: bbcs4luton@gmail.com @bbcs4luton www.facebook.com/bbcs4luton

Dear Head Teacher, Have you thought about commissioning a counsellor for pupils in your school who may need therapeutic intervention because they have witnessed abuse, violence, abandonment or have been in an exploitative situation?

Family Support Workers or Teaching Assistants may want to refer children, who they believe may benefit from therapeutic support, but sometimes, it is difficult to know who to refer young people to. BBCS4 Luton is a ‘friend with boundaries’ to young people and adults alike.

I am currently working with the Safeguarding Children Team, and have been for 8 years. I am also on Bedfordshire Metropolitan Police Stop & Search Panel, which means that DBS and Police Vetting has been completed.

I can offer private consultations, whether they be held in the school or at the Hub in Houghton Regis and all consultation are by appointment only.

Videos advertising ‘the cheapest, easiest and painless way to commit suicide are on YouTube and can be tempting to vulnerable children who are being victimised, bullied, drawn into gangs or forced to defend themselves, and a lot of the time, young people don’t know who to turn to.

A change in a child’s behaviour often goes unnoticed by parents. It is usually teachers, teaching assistants, or family support workers who become concerned about unexplained changes in a child’s behaviour, so I am hoping that the counselling service can be embedded in the Triple P Parenting Programme.

I have been counselling for several years, and I counselled patients at Blenheim Medical Centre for approximately one year. as their in-house counsellor using CBT and a humanistic integrative counselling approach, which was solution focussed. I am a qualified Counsellor (Dip C Inst.NH), and I would be more than happy to come in and have a talk with you, if you feel your school can identify pupils in need of therapeutic support, and who would benefit from an improved sense of wellbeing this service provides.

To close, this would be on an ‘as needed’ service that is secured by appointment, and my fee for each child would be charged at a rate of £15 for a 30 minute consultation, or a special rate of £75 for 6 x fortnightly (or weekly) sessions, whichever works better for the pupil.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Myrna Loy Counsellor, Dip C (Inst. NH) Blackbright Community Services Limited (BBCS4Luton)

blackbright news (ALSO SHARES WHATS CURRENT ON

YOUTUBE)

www.issuu.com/blackbrightnews www.facebook.com/BlackbrightMagazine Email: blackbrightnews@gmail.com @blackbrightnews www.linkedin/in/blackbrightnews