www.bbc.com/news/uk-45979359
"Across our immigration system, no-one should face a demand to supply DNA evidence and no-one should have been penalised for not providing it."
Why not? Applying to immigrate is not compulsory, and why is providing a DNA test any more an invasion than proving your identity any other way?
Am I missing something or is this just a load of old rubbish.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 26 Oct 18 at 02:08
|
|
Do you really want to know your daughters aren't yours?
|
If the law provides for what amounts to compulsory DNA tests that's one thing.
When there's no such legal provision it's another.
|
|
It's not compulsory, you don't need to apply to immigrate.
|
>> It's not compulsory, you don't need to apply to immigrate.
There are a whole variety of issues with DNA testing for immigration. Not just the one mentioned upthread where 'wrong side of the blanket' children might be exposed but of the test's reliability in cultures where marrying close family is the norm. DNA testing is not a magic bullet and there should be a proper scientific examination of pros and cons.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be used but if it is then there should be proper parliamentary process either primary legislation or regulations which can be debated and voted down. Instead it was introduced by Home Office staff off their own bats; not even clear if there was ministerial approval.
The applicants concerned were family of people already here legally. Judging by publicity a large proportion of them were related to Gurkhas and to Afghans who'd acted as translators for UK forces. Should those groups be subject to full force of the 'hostile environment'?
|
What nonsense.
This is exactly the type of behaviour that gets immigration such a bad name.
"I wish to immigrate"
"On what basis?"
"that I am person x / related to person x / of group x"
"Fair enough, prove it."
What is wrong with that? Why would anybody object to identifying themselves?
And as for children not aware of their parentage, then I can agree it should be confidential, but why should we have Government policy allowing for the actions, morality, care or honesty of the parents.
And as for "judging by publicity", well how could that go wrong?
|
It's not about the principle but the legality of the process. Here's a link to the Minister's statement:
www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-statement-on-the-use-of-dna-evidence-in-immigration-applications
It includes a hyperlink to a report commissioned after answers to Parliamentary Questions last June were found to be incorrect.
As the law stands the Immigration Service can ask for DNA; there is a specific legal ban on it being required.
Home Office staff were, contrary to law, making DNA testing a condition for consideration of applications.
Whether there should be a requirement for DNA is a question that has previously being answered with a No. Maybe that should be reconsidered but it's not reason Javid had to eat humble pie.
|
>>It's not about the principle but the legality of the process.
Oh, fair point, that's alright then. Dammit.
However, being unwilling to let go of my irritation quite so easily, if they had suddenly started saying "we want a copy of your birth certificate", where they had no previously done so, would that still be a matter of legality?
Is it not simply up to the process managers as to how they verify the veracity of any statements or foundations in an immigration application?
And whilst your point may be one of legality, I think some of the sanctimonious whining in the article was not. It was the principle of asking anyone to do anything.
|
If a man is in the country and wishes to import his child, and a DNA test proves it is not his child then is it right, or wrong, to deny access to that child.
If that child is permitted access then what is to permit his applying for a further million children that he regards as his too?
|
>> If that child is permitted access then what is to permit his applying for a
>> further million children that he regards as his too?
Yeah, what if Jesus applied for immigration.
|
>> Yeah, what if Jesus applied for immigration.
They'd probably crucify him.
|
|
...given the (alleged) nature of his birth, Father's DNA might be a bit of a problem......
|
>> ...given the (alleged) nature of his birth, Father's DNA might be a bit of a
>> problem......
Can I then assume that all those statements about the second coming foundered at Dover immigration?
(assume the donkey is in quarantine)
See they didn't think this Brexit thing through at all well.
|
>>If a man is in the country and wishes to import his child, and a DNA test proves it is not his child then is it right, or wrong, to deny access to that child.
Depends on the rules/criteria, I guess.
What happens to adopted children in such a case, anyone know? I have several times had to produce notarised birth certificates for my children, I wonder if I would have been permitted to produce adoption certificates?
I genuinely don't know.
|
|
If its a legally adopted child, or a dependant of a stable relationship, like a step child in a civil partnership I dont see where a DNA test is required, Just documented proof.
|
>> Do you really want to know your daughters aren't yours?
The Khasoggi murder lead me to think where I'd heard the surname before. He was the nephew of the Saudi Arms broker Adnan Khasoggi who's British wife was Soraya Khasoggi. One of their children was fathered by Jonathan Aitken and she was later 'involved' with Churchill's grandson - also Winston - MP for Davyhulme.
There are uncanny parallels between life of Soraya and Churchill junior's mother Pamela.
|
|
And that name was given to a Queen single from the album The Miracle: Khasoggi's Ship. It related to Adnan Khasoggi.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 25 Oct 18 at 21:50
|
>>
>> The Khasoggi murder lead me to think where I'd heard the surname before. He was
>> the nephew of the Saudi Arms broker Adnan Khasoggi who's British wife was Soraya Khasoggi.
>> One of their children was fathered by Jonathan Aitken and she was later 'involved' with
>> Churchill's grandson - also Winston - MP for Davyhulme.
I remembered the case. Didn't Private Eye have fun re-arranging the letters of her name to include a well-known and rather appropriate rude word?
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Fri 26 Oct 18 at 08:14
|
Immigration... - Lygonos
