US Wants Visas For Brits Based On Skin Color, Ethnicity

by C. Thu May 03, 2007 11:00

Jack Straw is the prime mover on this one. You will remember that he is Condoleeza's
best friend and wanted to get rid of the veil?

The New Labour image of quasi-liberal secularised socialism is probably the
most dangerous and hypocritcal stance taken by a modern government.

The leader , Blair is a Christian who will not get rid of the bishops in the Lords.
Who employs two very dangerous fundamentalists , Ruth Kelly and John Reid.

They are making the noises about 'Liberty, Equality and Fraternity' whilst absorbing
other cultures through war and stealth, but it seems to suit the British people to have
an overtly Christian (almost catholic leader) who talks equality but has on the
most beligerent war policies seen in modernity, the most religious cabinet and the
most emphasis on secularising other religions.

Thius began with iD's. Deporatations and now they are attempting to split the
home office and being overtly racist. yet they are getting away with it- its
a study in the rise of the nazi white identity in Europe and an indictment
against religious leadership masked as secularism.

by Go Figure Thu May 03, 2007 09:09

The majority of the Islamic terrorists who are plotting attacks or have carried out attacks thus far against Western targets are generally speaking of the Muslim religion and ethnically Middle Eastern.
Poll after poll (especially the Channel 4 poll that accompanied a current affairs programmed and debate hosted by John Snow, the award winning journalist and critic of the Bush administration) have shown that a significant national minority of young Muslims in Britain and significant local majorities of young Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law, believe Britain should be an Islamic state, support the activities of Al-Qaeda and believe that 9/11 was justified.

If Americans want to prevent another 9/11 from occuring common sense would tell you they would wish at the very least to be able to track of ethnically Middle Eastern and Islamic visitors to their shores?

What I mean is, a white Anglo-Saxon named Philip Johnson who likes to go clubbing, boozing and shagging every weekend is very unlikely to be a potential Al-Qaeda Muslim terrorist now is he?
While there is more likelihood that young man named Muhammed who rants about infidels and talks about how much he hates western whores who dress in mini-skirts, Death To America and Death To Israel and praises Bin Laden is up to no good?

During the 1980's when bombs were exploding in London, British authorities were probably going to have an interest in a man named Ciaran McCarthy who spoke an Irish accent rather than people called Henry Jenkinson who voted Tory?

During WW2 surely British Intelligence were going to keep an eye on people named Heinrich Schultz?

by redjade Wed May 02, 2007 20:51

At the moment, the British are resistant, fearing that restrictions on the group of Britons would incur a backlash from a population that has always sided with the Labor Party. The Americans say they are hesitant to push too hard and embarrass their staunch ally in the Iraq war, Prime Minister Tony Blair, as he prepares to step down from office.

Among the options that have been put on the table, according to British officials, was the most onerous option to Britain, that of canceling the entire visa waiver program that allows all Britons entry to the United States without a visa. Another option, politically fraught as it is, would be to single out Britons of Pakistani origin, requiring them to make visa applications for the United States.

Rather than impose any visa restrictions, the British government has told Washington it would prefer if the Americans simply deported Britons who failed screening once they arrived at an airport in the United States, British officials said. The British also screen at their end, and share intelligence with the Americans.

read more at....
New York Times link
no subscription required to view page
http://tinyurl.com/3a7toj