US 'wants British Pakistanis to have entry visas'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2070680,00.html


I just read this article.

"The American government wants to impose travel restrictions on British citizens of Pakistani origin because of concerns about terrorism, according to a report today"


Crazy.

 

they want to have a look at there own people first.before condeming everybody else.

 

That's a crazy policy, surely they should realise that integration, not marginalisation, is the key to undermining extremists. I expect the Bush administration, in it's failing days, are getting desperate to see some sort of results in their misguided war on terror....

 

Lets not jump to conclusions just yet - this is just media reporting.

The newspaper claimed - when something begins with that well !!!!!

I suspect ''America discuses with the UK - possible alterations to etc etc etc ''

is not such a good headline.

'' 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. ''

That makes sense-

CO-OPERATION

 

Given the existing imbalance between US-UK extradition laws, and given US domestic policy under the Bush administration, I think there is certainly a precedent for such draconian policies. This does not constitute jumping to conclusions, rather forming assumptions based on observed patterns....

 

hehehehehe. you think we're not? did you read ANYTHING about the "patriot act?" next to you guys, we're probably the most closely watched citizens of the so-called first world.

 

The treaty may have been ratified this year, but past trends suggest that it has been much easier for the US government to successfully have the British extradite a British citizen than vice versa.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4738760.stm

Morover, only a fool would argue that the 'special relationship' is an equal relationship. Do you really think you can make that case? Material factors of economic and military balance aside, it is undeniable that American influence on British foreign policy is phenomenally greater than British on American.

And saying you're not going to agree is not an adequate rebuttal. Even if you think the Patriot Act is a fair response to trying times, you're going to have to convince me that greater state control and surveillance over citizens does not have a bearing on the present situation. To ignore recent historical trends when analysing policy proposals is to blinker oneself....

 

Last year - The 2003 Treaty was formally approved by the US Senate on 29 September 2006 and the US Treaty Approval Document was signed by President Bush on 6 December 2006. - but who cares about the minor details.
http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/UKUS-extradition-traety

Yeah PAST trends - and you was[past tense]correct. We are not talking about the PAST - but the here and now.

That is why i said the ''truth'' of this will come out in a few months at nobody will be paying attention to it for a while - it will almost be like THIS story is actually TRUE. and FACT when in fact it is merely ''on the table''.

Do you remember how The attack of Iran was deemed FACT even though it was merely ''on the table'' and within some media story - that story has been doing the rounds for a very very long time.

Thats why i say lets not jump to conclusions - it could well happen and i'm sure it panders to your perceptions more than mine - but lets just wait and see.

Thats the way it is reported - not that you are swayed by media reporting -heavens no - but how far does your incorrect perceptions go - when the first thing you said in this thread is no longer true.

I'm sorry - a bit lazy od me.

How many other ''recent historical trends'' are there ?.

Yes it takes a iron age for UK/US policys to allign with each other . If i did not know that the UK/US treaty had been ratified would you have told me ? doubtful - the truth is both our cases can be equally stacked against each other - hence me being a little lazy. Sorry. I did not want to get into it - to the tune of 3 pages. I'm quite happy too though

 

Perhaps we're both a little guilty of laziness. But here I'm not assuming truth, I'm accepting possibility. Personally I don't think America will invade Iran. I may be wrong, but I think even if they wanted to, the present situation would stay their hand. My point here, however, is that it would be naive to assume that the American government would be above such policies. I would not suggest that Britain won't make a stand against them. It may indeed be difficult for them to implement those policies. But do you honestly believe that the intent is not there on the American part?

 

I think they like any goverment are not averse to keeping anything off the table - the fact that we hear more of the Americans proposed policys - is imho always a bit unfair reported and clearly prejudiced.

We are at differing ends of the political spectrum - so obviously how we percieve things it different. Lets see how it turns out - and i'm sorry to say it again lets not jump to conclusions.

 

well what that article doesnt say is that all British citizens will have to apply for a visa. This has been common knowledge for 3 years or so now. I knew somehow back then about these proposals, not just British Desi but all british

 

Just for information, there was a US spokesman on the Today prog this am who categorically denied this story. Which puts me in mind of the old saying, "never believe anything until it's been officially denied" ...

 

wrong ! dont believe anything till its been officially denied by the british government is the way forward, the USA still only shits on you if it says it will

 

have any of you had to apply for visas to other countries? like new zealand? it's a nightmare. i think y'all should have the same policies, for sure.