UK Leaders Condemn Donald Trump - A Case of People in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones?

Thirty-six hours after suggesting all Muslims should be banned from entering the United States, Republican Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump, is still suffering the ramifications.


And his latest Tweet suggests he has no intention of backing down.

In fact, he has stated that I'm doing good for the Muslims…many Muslim friends of mine are in agreement with me. They say, 'Donald, you brought something up to the fore that is so brilliant and so fantastic.

However, despite his posturing, his comments have been condemned by all the world leaders who have cared to comment, and a petition to ban him from visiting the UK now has 380,000 signatures. Demand to access the petition was so high on Wednesday, the Government website hosting it crashed several times.

Amid the furore over Mr Trump’s comments, one has to ask, despite members of the Cameron Government offering the appropriate words of disgust at such blatantly prejudiced talk, have they stopped to consider that some of the immigration policies the current Government has enacted or tried to enact could be considered just as discriminatory?

Consider the Right to Rent Scheme landlords will need to abide by from February 2016.  human rights groups have stated that this scheme is likely to lead to ‘foreign looking’ people being excluded from renting properties because landlords found to have illegal immigrants living in their properties could face a fine of £3,000, or under the immigration Bill 2015-16, up to five years’ incarceration.

What about the discriminatory financial rules placed on UK residents who wish to bring their non-EEA spouses and children to the UK?  Studies show 46% of ordinary UK citizens would be unable to meet the £18,600 threshold requirement to bring their spouse into the country, let alone the subsequent £3,800 applies for the first child and the additional £2,400 for each subsequent child.

Finally, let us not forget the Government’s thwarted attempt in 2013 to force visitors from "high risk" countries such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria to pay a £3,000 security bond to enter the UK.  The policy was binned after being seen as ‘highly discriminatory’ by the Tory Government’s then coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats.

In conclusion, our suggestion to the Home Secretary is rather than point the finger at Donald Trump, perhaps look at some of the UK’s current immigration policies, and examine whether or not they are just and reasonable in an open and democratic society.

As the saying goes, “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”!

Categories: 

Relevant People: 

For the best expert legal advice and outcome on your UK immigration application, contact OTS immigration Solicitors on 020 7936 9960 or contact us online.

 

We are one of the UK’s top firms for immigration Solicitors and civil liberties lawyers. We can advise on a broad range of immigration issues including Appeals and Refusals, Judicial Reviews, Spouse Visas, student visas, Work Permit Visas, indefinite leave to remain, EEA Applications, asylum and human rights, British Citizenship, All types of visas, Business Immigration Visas, Entrepreneur Visas and Investor Visas.

Our top immigration Solicitors and lawyers are here to assist you.

 

Disclaimer: The information and comments on this page/site is made available free of charge and for educational and information purposes only. The information and comments do not amount to and are not intended to be adopted as legal advice to any individual or company. The use of this site should not be a substitute for specific legal advice, which we ask you to see our contact page or call our solicitors on 0207 936 9960.

By using this site you understand that there is no solicitor and client relationship between you/your company and the site owners or the firm. We make every effort to keep the published articles up-to-date and accurate, however the law changes very rapidly and the older the articles on this site, the more likely that the views in it have changed with the development of the law.