Skip to main content
The Gurkhas

I admire the Gurkha soldiers tremendously. I think that the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office treat them badly. It would be absolutely right to let them into the country that they served and for which they would have died, and to grant them the rights that they had earned.

I can't help but wonder what on earth possesses the government not to let them in. I suspect that the government, if it knows what it is doing at all, is desperately trying to prevent the Gurkhas becoming the vanguard of a wave of immigration which would probably do this country no harm.

I do not by any means hold myself out as knowing anything about immigration law, so if any reader does, I would simply ask four questions;

1) There were, on the most recent figures, 6,600 troops from 42 countries outside Britain in the British Army, not counting the 3,640 Gurkhas. Would a Gurkha decision mean that all these troops and their families could come in?

2)If not, why not?

3) If a decision were made to allow the Gurkhas to come in, could it be subject to judicial review and human rights review if it exercised a parliamentary grant of power in such a way as to irrationally discriminate against some Gurkhas over others?

4) If troops from outside Britain (the main contingents seem to be from Jamaica and Ghana, and I know anecdotally that there are large numbers of the former in the catering corps) were effectively granted residence rights as a feature of their service, how could 'civilian' staff, employed in a combat zone, and armed or armoured alongside troops like, oh, say, translators, be kept out?

Just asking. I should emphasise that I do not know what the answers would be, but if I get some time I'll try and find out and I'd be grateful for any guidance.

Comments

b said…
Two decisions:

one woman deported

one man allowed in

Monstrous Regiment of Women
Martin Meenagh said…
Thanks B

I was perturbed by Nitschke coming in, given that his declared purpose, as another blogger put it, was to kill as many people as possible. Who were not our enemies.

Look, I'm not wading callously in; but I've seen people at their lowest ebb and I've lost a good many people whom I loved--still love--myself.

I will never, ever, support allowing people an easy option of pushing a button and killing themselves at their lowest ebb and I would urge everyone else not to do so too. I've seen people in agony.

But elevating death to a right is wrong. And if anyone wants to accuse me of thinking that from a religious standpoint, all I would say is that, as a citizen, I would want to live in a country that never gave up on life, even if those who held it did because of pain.

My and your response to pain is about me and you. Life is greater. This civilisation is near death itself, but I don't see why we should embrace killing.
Anonymous said…
Rudyard Kipling's Tommy comes to this AC's mind, stolen from someone better read in this thread on the same topic. I don't have any answers for you, aside from the thought that 10,000 immigrants doesn't seem significant compared to, say, the number of work permits issued to EU members in the UK. Granted, non-British troops have wives, children and other relatives but they won't all join the workforce.
...
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.
...
Martin Meenagh said…
Let's say that they all had a wife and child--that's thirty thousand, though the likelihood would be that they would be a disciplined, non-criminal, paying-for-themselves thirty thousand with skills, at least eventually. It's also highly unlikely, given this country's overextended commitments, that many of those currently employed are going to stop serving the country anytime soon, and of course they are highly unlikely or unable to retire en masse.

As with everything, AC, I suspect that the wrong things are being done. For instance, I think that the public own the wrong things--for example, education, the arts or the banks, and that the wrong things are private-for instance, utilities and transport infrastructure. Similarly, we let in people who do not appear in large part though obviously not in total to want to work or play by the rules because we have to as refugees, whilst keeping out the skilled or the disciplined and we are driving our own skilled and disciplined away.

To a certain sort of person, this country has always been in decline. It's a mentality. However, it is in danger right now of making itself a basket case of rising taxes, unsustainable spending, corruption, and criminality. There are very good things about being here too, but the culture is sick and needs a cure, needs a remoralisation frankly. behind the post, I just wondered where immigration of soldiers fit into that.

As ever, thank you for your comment. I like Kipling very much, particularly Tomlinson, and 'The Gods of the Copybook Headings', though I have time for 'Gunga Din' too. I think that he came very close to the voice of the ordinary soldier, as far as I would know what that was anyway....
Martin Meenagh said…
Of course, it just occurred to me to write what I omitted to before. if we paid the Gurkhas and their wives a higher rate even remotely equivalent to the service of a British soldier (which is inadequate) for the job they do, the bulk of that force would live like royalty at home or in most of the rest of the world. Then this issue would only arise, as it were, academically.

Popular posts from this blog

I resign from the Labour Party The likes of Andy Burnham, Hazel Blears, Mary Honeyball and Luke Akehurst are now representative of the Labour Party. They have at least given me a clear mind in recent days, and for that, I suppose, I should be grateful. I have been a Labour member since I was 16, in a steeltown. I can just about accept that student union hacks with no proper job experience can spend their time undercutting unions and selling public administration to their mates, because something could arise that may be better. I can also accept that some immigrants, because of a misplaced desire to avoid the appearance of racism, are more 'acceptable' to the Left than others, so my own family's Irish Catholicism can be something to be sneered at by the ranks of Labour activists. I can accept that there may be a fiscal case for not taxing the super rich with capital gains, but not for truckling to them or sucking up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch. I can accept that there mig...

What really happened to JFK and America in Dallas?

 I realised some time ago that my students do not understand references to the events of November 1963 in Dallas anymore. So I have been using a break to compile a briefing book on the events, the use of commissions and enquiries to pursue particular narratives, and the embedding of the JFK assassination in American culture. This is the first chapter. It is a very long read. All mistakes are my own.  Before the Assassination Lee Harvey Oswald was a US Marine and radar operator at the Atsugi naval base, carrying an elevated clearance. He was also learning Russian and loudly proclaiming his Marxist-Leninist sympathies. These were not investigated or treated as a security risk. [1] Whilst at Atsugi, Oswald probably became one of a number of American marines in a programme to identify moles within the security establishment. This required him to cut his Marine service short by suggesting that he had to look after a sick mother, and also that he wished to seek higher education ...

AI and I write about Boolean Logic and conspiracies

 AI and I have been trying to make sense of what I think about the emerging political and legal landscape online. I'd thought of this as a lecture series building on somewhat vague ideas I had about what AI is, where it comes from, and how to use it for the purposes of merging Catholic thought with Georgism to escape liberalism. All quite soupy stuff. Here is one of our efforts. The Devil’s Boolean: How Modernity Turned Us Into Conspiracy Machines Modern democracies rest on a paradox. They promise freedom, rational control, and technological progress—yet deliver burnout, conspiracy, and deepening distrust. Tools meant to liberate us—social media, artificial intelligence, the market—now trap us in a relentless binary logic: success or failure, visibility or obscurity, control or collapse. That binary—what might be called a Boolean logic of the self —runs deeper than technology. It comes out of a Protestant-inflected culture that prizes achievement as a moral duty. As philosopher...