A few weeks ago I argued that the British government treatment of Gurkha’s who had left the army prior to 1997 was immoral and unfair: http://www.power-to-the-people.co.uk/2008/09/immigration-policy-farce/ In effect, the government argued that Gurkha’s that had retired from the army prior to 1997 would not have an automatic right to stay in the UK.

Today, instead of the government acting with honour, it was left to the judiciary, The judge, Mr Justice Blake, said the Gurkhas’ long service, conspicuous acts of bravery and loyalty to the Crown all pointed to a “moral debt of honour” and gratitude felt by British people. I could not have put it better myself. He went on to say that the advice given by the Home Office to the immigration department was unlawful and required urgent revision.

I cannot but wonder, in light of Jacqui Smith’s statement, why it was necessary for this to go to court. Jacqui Smith said in a statement “I have always been clear that where there is a compelling case, soldiers and their families should be considered for settlement,” she said. “We will honour our commitment to the Gurkha’s by reviewing all cases by the end of the year.” Actions speak louder than words, but this type of response and intransigence has become typical of this particular government. The public will be watching to ensure that the government does not attempt to get out of this commitment.

Whilst our immigration policy is prepared to allow in EU citizens, asylum seekers, economic migrants, gangs and people smugglers, we are refusing entry to a handful of Ghurka’s and Iraqui interpreters that have helped us.

For example, since the time of the Empire, the formidable Gurkha’s, have long fought alongside the British Army in campaigns from the two world wars, through to the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. In spite of this we are prepared to refuse entry to these brave soldiers who have risked their lives for our liberty and freedom, such that it is under the Labour government. Although we have allowed Gurkha’s that have left the army recently, to settle in the UK, we are refusing this benefit to those that left more than a decade ago. Surely our appreciation of their efforts and sacrifices is not time limited?

In addition, we are refusing entry to the Iraqi interpreters that have assisted our soldiers in Iraq. The government has decided that if they have “served” the British army for less than 1 year, that they cannot settle in the UK and, in any event, they should be subject to a quota. Why, is the British government claiming that those that have served less than 1 year are in less danger? What total and utter nonsense. It is reprehensible that the government, in our name, would seek to restrict the access of people that have served or supported our armed forces in the theatre of war, whilst allowing in any other Tom, Dick or Harry.

We are only talking abour a handful of Gurkha’s and interpreters, but the message we send by refusing entry is significant, not to mention hypocritical. This government needs to address this issue positively, before they bring shame on all of the people of this country.

I have argued for some time that we should have a much stricter immigration policy particularly given there is a significant impact on our services, such as health, education and housing, which is all too often ignored in favour of the ’cheap labour’ provided by economic migrants. However, I do not believe we should turn our backs on those that have helped us in our time of need, to do so, is quite simply shameful.