US blocks UK Muslim family from boarding plane to Disneyland

[Richard W]

Their address was flagged,because of posts for terrorists,pity they were allowed back into the UK

They didn't leave the UK!

[i claudius]

Not all terrorists are Muslim. Thought I'd point that out, incase you all forgot.

Religion, race, colour and creed. Sh1t happens, it's just more widely reported these days due to the age of the internet. Chill, this sh1ts been going on for milleniums.

Not all terrorists are Muslim,no ,but most are

[MW72]

Not all terrorists are Muslim. Thought I'd point that out, incase you all forgot.

Religion, race, colour and creed. Sh1t happens, it's just more widely reported these days due to the age of the internet. Chill, this sh1ts been going on for milleniums.

Not all terrorists are Muslim,no ,but most are

You should try Googling "non muslim terrorist attacks". The global research page and the loon watch page make for interesting reading.

[MW72]

The UK press is now reporting these people had/have credible links to extremist ideology and to the world of Terrorism .

Maybe the Americans were right in refusing them ....................?

I saw the wife on bbc yesterday, milking this for all its worth"I am sick and instead of spending 9,000 pounds on my treatment I decided to spend it to make the kids happy by sending them to disneyland.bla bla bla"..what was really alarming was that the interviewer (a white woman) looked like she was totally sympathising, instead of staying neutral.

What the hell is wrong with the media, when they are so bloody left leaning and liberal? It's disgusting.

The UK has really messed up by letting these people into their countrythey look like pakistanis..what were they escaping from in pakistan, anyway? And what are they contributing to the UK's economy?

As far as I'm concerned, the UK (and France) are basically muslim majority countries now and should be treated as such.

Basically muslim majority in your mind. Not when using any recognised definition of the word majority or any scientific method of counting.

[Wilsonandson]

Not all terrorists are Muslim. Thought I'd point that out, incase you all forgot.

Religion, race, colour and creed. Sh1t happens, it's just more widely reported these days due to the age of the internet. Chill, this sh1ts been going on for milleniums.

Not all terrorists are Muslim,no ,but most are

You should try Googling "non muslim terrorist attacks". The global research page and the loon watch page make for interesting reading.

Googled and found this at the top of the search list. http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

Interesting indeed. Should be sent to Donald trump immediately.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The part I don't understand about these kinds of news reports is the timing of things.

This family was apparently denied at the airport as they were preparing to board the plane to the U.S. -- presumably long after they had made their airplane reservations and purchased their tickets, along with what must have been a variety of other travel bookings/plans.

So, if the U.S. had some security problem with them, why couldn't they have been notified when they went to purchase their airplane tickets, or shortly thereafter? At that point, all their IDs and passport numbers would have been entered into the airline's -- and thus the various government's traveler security checking systems. Or, if the U.S. had some security problem with them, why not simply revoke or suspend their tourist (or whatever) visa?

The family in question certainly was going to find out at some point that the U.S. had a problem with them. So it's not like it was going to remain a state secret and the family wasn't going to find out about it. So why do these things seemingly always have to wait until people are getting ready to board the airplane?

[Richard W]

South Asian were not 'imported' to the UK in the industrial revolution to work in textile mills in the North. Even non Brits with the slightest faculty for understanding history would know this.

Nobody said British Pakistanis arrived in the industrial revolution. A significant number of Pakistani primary immigrants did arrive to work in English textile mills, which is why there are a lot of Pakistanis in Bradford. The chief dates are in the 50's and 60's.

[MiKT]

I think this is the crux of the problem. Nobody can deny the US or any other country the right to deny entry to anybody for any reason whatsoever and at least for the UK everybody has the right of appeal if they think there are no valid grounds for denying entry. But in this case, on the surface at least, it seems to be a failure of the visa vetting program.

But if the applicants made false declarations or failed to reveal issues that would rightly get you banned and these only surfaced at a late time they cannot complain if they were not allowed the plane.

In the old days plenty of people arrived at immigration and were not allowed in. At least they would be able to get some money back from the airline and if they were sensible from travel insurance. That is if being classed as a potential terrorist does not fall under the "act of god" category.

[jacky54]

Any chance of a Christian family going to Mecca for a holiday- ever?

[chuckd]

Any chance of a Christian family going to Mecca for a holiday- ever?

Never.

[OMGImInPattaya]

The UK press is now reporting these people had/have credible links to extremist ideology and to the world of Terrorism .

Maybe the Americans were right in refusing them ....................?

I saw the wife on bbc yesterday, milking this for all its worth"I am sick and instead of spending 9,000 pounds on my treatment I decided to spend it to make the kids happy by sending them to disneyland.bla bla bla"..what was really alarming was that the interviewer (a white woman) looked like she was totally sympathising, instead of staying neutral.

What the hell is wrong with the media, when they are so bloody left leaning and liberal? It's disgusting.

The UK has really messed up by letting these people into their countrythey look like pakistanis..what were they escaping from in pakistan, anyway? And what are they contributing to the UK's economy?

As far as I'm concerned, the UK (and France) are basically muslim majority countries now and should be treated as such.

Basically muslim majority in your mind. Not when using any recognised definition of the word majority or any scientific method of counting.

So I'm a generation early...what was the most popular name for baby boys in the UK last year?

[OMGImInPattaya]

Their address was flagged,because of posts for terrorists,pity they were allowed back into the UK

It's part of the "Cool Britannia" campaign.

[MW72]

The UK press is now reporting these people had/have credible links to extremist ideology and to the world of Terrorism .

Maybe the Americans were right in refusing them ....................?

I saw the wife on bbc yesterday, milking this for all its worth"I am sick and instead of spending 9,000 pounds on my treatment I decided to spend it to make the kids happy by sending them to disneyland.bla bla bla"..what was really alarming was that the interviewer (a white woman) looked like she was totally sympathising, instead of staying neutral.

What the hell is wrong with the media, when they are so bloody left leaning and liberal? It's disgusting.

The UK has really messed up by letting these people into their countrythey look like pakistanis..what were they escaping from in pakistan, anyway? And what are they contributing to the UK's economy?

As far as I'm concerned, the UK (and France) are basically muslim majority countries now and should be treated as such.

Basically muslim majority in your mind. Not when using any recognised definition of the word majority or any scientific method of counting.

So I'm a generation early...what was the most popular name for baby boys in the UK last year?

Having Mohammed as the most popular name does not make Muslims the majority. It only means that Mohammed is a popular name and perhaps Muslims are less inventive or original when choosing names.

[OMGImInPattaya]

The UK press is now reporting these people had/have credible links to extremist ideology and to the world of Terrorism .

Maybe the Americans were right in refusing them ....................?

I saw the wife on bbc yesterday, milking this for all its worth"I am sick and instead of spending 9,000 pounds on my treatment I decided to spend it to make the kids happy by sending them to disneyland.bla bla bla"..what was really alarming was that the interviewer (a white woman) looked like she was totally sympathising, instead of staying neutral.

What the hell is wrong with the media, when they are so bloody left leaning and liberal? It's disgusting.

The UK has really messed up by letting these people into their countrythey look like pakistanis..what were they escaping from in pakistan, anyway? And what are they contributing to the UK's economy?

As far as I'm concerned, the UK (and France) are basically muslim majority countries now and should be treated as such.

Basically muslim majority in your mind. Not when using any recognised definition of the word majority or any scientific method of counting.

So I'm a generation early...what was the most popular name for baby boys in the UK last year?

Having Mohammed as the most popular name does not make Muslims the majority. It only means that Mohammed is a popular name and perhaps Muslims are less inventive or original when choosing names.

Wrong! It means the muslims are out-breeding the non-muslim population and will be flying the flag of the califate atop Buckingham Palace in no time at all.

[MW72]

As far as I'm concerned, the UK (and France) are basically muslim majority countries now and should be treated as such.

Basically muslim majority in your mind. Not when using any recognised definition of the word majority or any scientific method of counting.

So I'm a generation early...what was the most popular name for baby boys in the UK last year?

According to the 2011 census there are 37.5 million Christians in the UK and 2.7 million Muslims so I think you are out by quite a number of generations there. That's 59.49% of the population compared to 4.41%. There are also 16.2 million who have no religion (assume Atheist) which along with the 4.5 million who didn't state their religion makes 32.84% of the population. So over 91% not Muslim without counting the Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists etc. Those Muslims are really going to have to start popping out those kids to become the majority.

[Richard W]

The original, legal, economic migrants were ?Pakistanis, ( ?Indians ) brought in to work in the mills, probably for a pittance ( exploitation has been going on a very long time ). Where it all went wrong was when they let them stay and bring their families over. I guess they just never envisaged the welfare state as it is today. They still haven't learned the lesson and still let them stay and bring families over ( or so I believe ). Saudi has the sane policy of allowing "guest workers" to stay only as long as they have a job, and when they haven't, they go home.

South Asian were not 'imported' to the UK in the industrial revolution to work in textile mills in the North. Even non Brits with the slightest faculty for understanding history would know this.

Nobody said British Pakistanis arrived in the industrial revolution. A significant number of Pakistani primary immigrants did arrive to work in English textile mills, which is why there are a lot of Pakistanis in Bradford. The chief dates are in the 50's and 60's.

By editing the post you have either by design or neglect entirely changed the context of the post and my response. The post claimed that Pakistanis and Indians were 'brought' to the UK to work in the mills. I have eyes. This is what I read. It is not necessary to say what the post said or did not say. It is clear to everyone. My assessment of the reason behind posting ignorant, made up stories remains valid.

Legal immigration from South Asia in Post WWII Britain included many nationalities and people of many different religions. The fact that some of these immigrants found employment in textile mills in Bradford is entirely irrelevant. The fact that these legal immigrants brought their families under legally established immigration arrangements is also entirely irrelevant. Irrelevant to the fantasy post to which I responded. The claim was that exploited labour was trafficked to the UK to work in mills and this labour force opened the door to muslim migration. The era of labour exploitation in the UK was during the industrialisation of the North and the dramatic shift in population from rural areas to urban areas. This population shift provided the work force for the various factories and industrial processes.

Post WWII immigration to the UK is described in the British National Archives http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/brave_new_world/immigration.htm. It identifies racism and racist violence as a characteristic of this period in British history.

ThaiBeachLovers' post said nothing about trafficking. I believe the 'exploitation' is relative to the natives. Many of the jobs taken were jobs that the natives declined, at least at the offered rates of pay. The jobs available were much better paid than what was on offer in Pakistan. 'Bringing in' merely implies recruitment targeted at specific regions of the world. You may argue that, on the contrary, the primary immigrants came in on spec; there was a post in another topic which claims that the textile industry actively recruited overseas. There's also the middle situation where recruitment was done by those who had already arrived.

It is a fact that the primary immigration has enabled secondary immigration. This includes not only foreign-born children of the original immigrants, but also the spouses, male and female, that the original immigrant's children have brought in. There have been maintenance and accommodation restrictions - the income restrictions since 2012 now prohibit much of the population of Britain from bringing in a foreign spouse.

[wooloomooloo]

Their address was flagged,because of posts for terrorists,pity they were allowed back into the UK

They didn't leave the UK!

The US did the family a big favour. If they wanted to be particularly cruel, they could have refused entry on arrival.

I can't see anything other than a non-story.

[Scott]

There are some interesting tangential posts, but let's try to stick a little closer to the topic of the thread.

[tgeezer]

I imagine that it was because they were Muslim, I doubt that true Muslims would want anything to do with Disneyland, an example of true Muslims is ISIS. Hypocrisy is fine in Christianity, because a lack of it just makes one a tolerant peace loving person but a lack of it in Islam is just the opposite.

[Mosha]

South Asian were not 'imported' to the UK in the industrial revolution to work in textile mills in the North. Even non Brits with the slightest faculty for understanding history would know this.

Nobody said British Pakistanis arrived in the industrial revolution. A significant number of Pakistani primary immigrants did arrive to work in English textile mills, which is why there are a lot of Pakistanis in Bradford. The chief dates are in the 50's and 60's.

My paternal grand mother's family were mill owners in Dewsbury. The owners could not accept the shoddy industry was up the creek without a paddle. The workers wanted a living wage and could not get it. The bosses brought in the cheap labour Grandmother was shunned for marrying a working class lad.

[RabC]

Wrong! It means the muslims are out-breeding the non-muslim population and will be flying the flag of the califate atop Buckingham Palace in no time at all.

I don't know whether to report you for your ignorant bigotry or just write what I truly feel.

[lostboy]

The original, legal, economic migrants were ?Pakistanis, ( ?Indians ) brought in to work in the mills, probably for a pittance ( exploitation has been going on a very long time ). Where it all went wrong was when they let them stay and bring their families over. I guess they just never envisaged the welfare state as it is today. They still haven't learned the lesson and still let them stay and bring families over ( or so I believe ). Saudi has the sane policy of allowing "guest workers" to stay only as long as they have a job, and when they haven't, they go home.

By editing the post you have either by design or neglect entirely changed the context of the post and my response. The post claimed that Pakistanis and Indians were 'brought' to the UK to work in the mills. I have eyes. This is what I read. It is not necessary to say what the post said or did not say. It is clear to everyone. My assessment of the reason behind posting ignorant, made up stories remains valid.

Legal immigration from South Asia in Post WWII Britain included many nationalities and people of many different religions. The fact that some of these immigrants found employment in textile mills in Bradford is entirely irrelevant. The fact that these legal immigrants brought their families under legally established immigration arrangements is also entirely irrelevant. Irrelevant to the fantasy post to which I responded. The claim was that exploited labour was trafficked to the UK to work in mills and this labour force opened the door to muslim migration. The era of labour exploitation in the UK was during the industrialisation of the North and the dramatic shift in population from rural areas to urban areas. This population shift provided the work force for the various factories and industrial processes.

Post WWII immigration to the UK is described in the British National Archives http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/brave_new_world/immigration.htm. It identifies racism and racist violence as a characteristic of this period in British history.

ThaiBeachLovers' post said nothing about trafficking. I believe the 'exploitation' is relative to the natives. Many of the jobs taken were jobs that the natives declined, at least at the offered rates of pay. The jobs available were much better paid than what was on offer in Pakistan. 'Bringing in' merely implies recruitment targeted at specific regions of the world. You may argue that, on the contrary, the primary immigrants came in on spec; there was a post in another topic which claims that the textile industry actively recruited overseas. There's also the middle situation where recruitment was done by those who had already arrived.

It is a fact that the primary immigration has enabled secondary immigration. This includes not only foreign-born children of the original immigrants, but also the spouses, male and female, that the original immigrant's children have brought in. There have been maintenance and accommodation restrictions - the income restrictions since 2012 now prohibit much of the population of Britain from bringing in a foreign spouse.

The operative word is 'brought'. If you can demonstrate that textile mills recruited in Pakistan and India and facilitated the movement of Pakistan and Indian national to the UK in significant numbers to work in the textile mills then I will withdraw my post. I maintain that South Asian immigration to the UK in that period was driven by other factors.

What you call secondary immigration i.e. by families of original immigrants was entirely legal.

[SgtRock]

RabC, on 27 Dec 2015 - 09:43, said:

OMGImInPattaya, on 26 Dec 2015 - 23:09, said:

Wrong! It means the muslims are out-breeding the non-muslim population and will be flying the flag of the califate atop Buckingham Palace in no time at all.

I don't know whether to report you for your ignorant bigotry or just write what I truly feel.

Take one of the EU core principles. Add a bit of tactical nous and some forms of incentives and it could be achieved in a decade.

Going off topic but it is actually frightening if you think about it.

[SgtRock]

lostboy, on 27 Dec 2015 - 09:47, said:

Richard W, on 27 Dec 2015 - 00:30, said:

ThaiBeachLovers' post said nothing about trafficking. I believe the 'exploitation' is relative to the natives. Many of the jobs taken were jobs that the natives declined, at least at the offered rates of pay. The jobs available were much better paid than what was on offer in Pakistan. 'Bringing in' merely implies recruitment targeted at specific regions of the world. You may argue that, on the contrary, the primary immigrants came in on spec; there was a post in another topic which claims that the textile industry actively recruited overseas. There's also the middle situation where recruitment was done by those who had already arrived.

It is a fact that the primary immigration has enabled secondary immigration. This includes not only foreign-born children of the original immigrants, but also the spouses, male and female, that the original immigrant's children have brought in. There have been maintenance and accommodation restrictions - the income restrictions since 2012 now prohibit much of the population of Britain from bringing in a foreign spouse.

The operative word is 'brought'. If you can demonstrate that textile mills recruited in Pakistan and India and facilitated the movement of Pakistan and Indian national to the UK in significant numbers to work in the textile mills then I will withdraw my post. I maintain that South Asian immigration to the UK in that period was driven by other factors.

What you call secondary immigration i.e. by families of original immigrants was entirely legal.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1086126/

In 1967, the British invited a displaced Pakistani community of thousands to establish themselves in Britain. It also served the labour shortage in Britain’s textile mills. The same lack of workers in the 1960s saw the British Ministry of Health recruiting nurses and domestic workers directly from the West Indies, and London Transport establish a recruitment office in Barbados.

Some area's of the UK are still referred to as 1st Generation.

A large number of Pakistanis continue to bring spouses from back home. In Bradford, for instance, a large number of Pakistanis continue to be first generation immigrants.

A community of over 1.1 million individuals, which has been in Britain for over five decades, should now be working with second- and third-generation immigrants. Instead, waves of fresh migrants continue to arrive from Pakistan, which prevents the diaspora from developing educated, experienced, and networked communities.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1086126/

[lostboy]

lostboy, on 27 Dec 2015 - 09:47, said:

The operative word is 'brought'. If you can demonstrate that textile mills recruited in Pakistan and India and facilitated the movement of Pakistan and Indian national to the UK in significant numbers to work in the textile mills then I will withdraw my post. I maintain that South Asian immigration to the UK in that period was driven by other factors.

What you call secondary immigration i.e. by families of original immigrants was entirely legal.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1086126/

In 1967, the British invited a displaced Pakistani community of thousands to establish themselves in Britain. It also served the labour shortage in Britain’s textile mills. The same lack of workers in the 1960s saw the British Ministry of Health recruiting nurses and domestic workers directly from the West Indies, and London Transport establish a recruitment office in Barbados.

Some area's of the UK are still referred to as 1st Generation.

A large number of Pakistanis continue to bring spouses from back home. In Bradford, for instance, a large number of Pakistanis continue to be first generation immigrants.

A community of over 1.1 million individuals, which has been in Britain for over five decades, should now be working with second- and third-generation immigrants. Instead, waves of fresh migrants continue to arrive from Pakistan, which prevents the diaspora from developing educated, experienced, and networked communities.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1086126/

Not even close. The post to which I referred and heavily edited by another poster claimed that Pakistani and Indians were 'brought' to the UK and 'exploited' in the textile mills.

You identify one group of Pakistani people who were settled in the UK as a result of displacement from a dam project. Your article then states that employment of such people served to alleviate a labour shortage in the mills.

The accusation was that UK textile mills brought South Asian muslims to work as exploited labour and this opened the door to further muslim migration through brining in their families.

Playing google bingo has merely led you into narrative fallacy. Trying to make a sequence of facts fit your perceived narrative. Even throwing in West Indian migration to the mix. You are aware that the West Indies is not in South Asia are you not?

Please keep on trying if you have nothing better to do with your time on a Sunday.

[Scott]

There are some interesting tangential posts, but let's try to stick a little closer to the topic of the thread.

That was a nice reminder to get back on topic. How people from Pakistan got to the UK and the history of the textile industry is interesting, but off-topic.

[i claudius]

Wrong! It means the muslims are out-breeding the non-muslim population and will be flying the flag of the califate atop Buckingham Palace in no time at all.

I don't know whether to report you for your ignorant bigotry or just write what I truly feel.

You would have to include most of the population in your report then .

[i claudius]

Not all terrorists are Muslim. Thought I'd point that out, incase you all forgot.

Religion, race, colour and creed. Sh1t happens, it's just more widely reported these days due to the age of the internet. Chill, this sh1ts been going on for milleniums.

Not all terrorists are Muslim,no ,but most are

You should try Googling "non muslim terrorist attacks". The global research page and the loon watch page make for interesting reading.

In today's Papers

European capitol cities step up security amid warnings of terror attacks between now and New Year . wonder who the attackers could be , Jews , Crazed American gun fanatics , Bhuddists , Fringe Christian Groups? hard to tell ,oh it may be those peacful Muslims ,you never know .

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

[happy Joe]

Not all terrorists are Muslim,no ,but most are

You should try Googling "non muslim terrorist attacks". The global research page and the loon watch page make for interesting reading.

Correction, you must Googliser "mortal" Terrorist Attacks caused by Muslims VS non-Muslims. And then the assertion saying almost all terrorists are Muslims will make sense.

One must be wary of internet statistics where the attacks of September 11 are placed at the same level as a Finger salute of an ordinary separatist.