Time for Iraqi interpreters to attempt to immigrate growing short

[manualhaynes]

Good morning ladies and Gents of PPrune.

The Government has been accused of deserting former Iraqi interpreters who risked their lives for Britain, after announcing that it would close its assistance scheme in a fortnight.
Britain’s treatment of the Iraqis was compared last night with that of the Gurkhas as it emerged that scores of families are still living in fear of being murdered by militias who accuse them of collaborating with the enemy.
I was impressed with the fight and eventual success you had with the Gurkha campaign so I thought it was time for you guys and girls to fight for the Iraqi interpreters that have been abandoned by this Government.
I am sure many of you served in Iraq and even both Gulf Wars, so I am asking you to please support our campaign to right this wrong. Please can we have some ideas as to the best way to get them to listen, as your last campaign seemed to work.
Maybe you could write to your local MP and get him or her to petition the Government. These people deserve a better chance in life as they have put their lives on the line for the British Government and its Armed Forces.

Please don't let them down.

Thank you.

Government to close lifeline for Iraqi interpreters in two weeks - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6216970.ece)

[dallas]

If it's true that the scheme is being wound-up, my question would be why haven't those who want to move to the UK done so in the last 12-ish months of the option being available? Closing this door only seems to coincide with the end of British operations, and to be frank, makes sense to avoid inevitable chancers who will claim all sorts of links to the British operation after the event. We either set a deadline, or get bogged down in all sorts of bureacracy and legal challenges ad infinitum.

Our government are undoubtedly a treacherous bunch who wriggle to dodge responsibility at every turn, but on this occasion I don't see anything wrong with their announcement - it's certainly not comparable to the Ghurka case.

[manualhaynes]

it's certainly not comparable to the Ghurka case.

How can you say that? What argument are you basing your last comment on? You see being cynic you could suggest that the Gurkhas have always been mercenaries, who serve the British Army for the very same reasons many that the Nepalese battalions today fight in the Indian Army: as a career, a living, not because they care a fig for the Queen or for this country. When we left Hong Kong there was a case put forward for disbanding the Gurkhas , because they have always been most notable as jungle fighters, at the forefront of our Asian wars. Instead, however, the British Government chose to maintain the Gurkha units, because the British Army was desperately short of infantry soldiers, and the fact that British public loves them. Of course when we made that decision, we established an obligation must be maintained to all who serve the British Army in any context, and with no time line.Whatever your views about Britain's immigration policy, and indeed about the disastrous folly of Blair's Iraq war, we must surely display generosity until all claims have been settled or disputed.
Interpreters who have worked for years with British troops in the field are far more likely to become good citizens of this country than many of those who come here shamelessly for our money, and want no part of our culture or lives. If you and I cannot recognise where our national duty lies here, then we shall not deserve the help of local people on future battlefields to which our soldiers are committed, as they surely will be.
These Iraqis must be made welcome, in the name of Britain's honour

[Jumping_Jack]

Although the interpreters I came into contact with in Iraq were OK, they were almost to a man doing the job for the money and maybe for their home town as a close second. They weren't doing it for Queen and Country! I certainly wouldn't have trusted any of them with my life, something that I would have done with the Gurkhas.

Definitely not comparable cases.

[dallas]

How can you say that? What argument are you basing your last comment on? You see being cynic you could suggest that the Gurkhas have always been mercenaries, who serve the British Army for the very same reasons many that the Nepalese battalions today fight in the Indian Army: as a career, a living, not because they care a fig for the Queen or for this country.
My understanding is Gurkhas hold our Queen in very high esteem, while those I have met always appear polite and respectful - model citizens, you could say. And as Jumping_Jack says, there is little evidence that patriotism towards the UK was a driving force for Iraqi interpreters - why should it be?

Whatever your views about Britain's immigration policy, and indeed about the disastrous folly of Blair's Iraq war, we must surely display generosity until all claims have been settled or disputed.
My understanding is the immigration door has been open since spring last year. It cannot and should not remain open permanently, as the British government has identified. Besides, if the principal reason is to provide a safe haven for Iraqis who have assisted UK forces, what are these people going to do in Iraq after the British leave? The implication is they are safe, so why offer immigration?

Interpreters who have worked for years with British troops in the field are far more likely to become good citizens of this country than many of those who come here shamelessly for our money, and want no part of our culture or lives.
I don't follow your logic - there's nothing to indicate an interpreter will make a good citizen whatsoever.

If you and I cannot recognise where our national duty lies here, then we shall not deserve the help of local people on future battlefields to which our soldiers are committed, as they surely will be.
These Iraqis must be made welcome, in the name of Britain's honour
And they have been, so why are you so concerned that the door is closing? If those who are left behind are not in danger - perhaps because they maintain their anonymity - there is no practical reason for them to be given residency in the UK. It would appear that those who might be in danger have been given this option, and I sense a bandwaggon somewhere nearby - perhaps you have a vested interest manual?

[baffman]

And they have been, so why are you so concerned that the door is closing? If those who are left behind are not in danger - perhaps because they maintain their anonymity - there is no practical reason for them to be given residency in the UK. It would appear that those who might be in danger have been given this option, and I sense a bandwaggon somewhere nearby - perhaps you have a vested interest manual?

"If those who are left behind are not in danger" I saw what you did there! The article makes it quite clear that there are people left behind who are in danger - or believe they are in danger - or at the very least, say they are in danger.

HMG accepted that some former local staff could be in special danger because they worked for British forces or agencies. No doubt you know better, but that was one of the planks of the policy.

Yet the scheme is limited to those who have worked 12 consecutive months — a requirement often difficult to prove given the volatile environment in Iraq. People are only eligible to apply if they worked for a year from January 1, 2005. Many interpreters were forced to quit earlier because of intimidation.Still wondering why the applicants mentioned in the story havent arrived in UK yet? Personally I accept the principle of 12 months service as a rule of thumb. Where it falls down is that the scheme had no flexibility to admit those with less than the qualifying period, even if they could show they were in special danger. In that and other respects, the scheme is flawed.

Vested interest? Certainly, although that is an odd argument to use in a discussion like this. Like the earlier poster, I would like to see more flexibility being shown before the scheme is wound up. Bandwagon? It was a public campaign which led to the assistance scheme in the first place. Without what you call a bandwagon it would never have happened at all.

[manualhaynes]

perhaps you have a vested interest manual?

Yes I do. You seem to make that out as some sort of criminal act. I have a vested interest to make sure that those who served our country get a safe place to live. Obviously you would prefer that they are murdered by the militia in Iraq. Well you are entitled to your opinion but you do sound like our wonderful government in some of your views.
Maybe I am mistaken on the generosity of those on this forum and if I may say so a little disappointed by the lack of responses. Perhaps having just got off one "Bandwagon" you perhaps don't want to get on another. Your choice and I will leave it at that.

[minigundiplomat]

The Ghurkas have a history of fighting with incredible bravery for the UK going back hundreds of years.

Iraqi interpreters did the job mainly for personal gain, over a maximum period of 6 years.

Sorry Manual but you screwed the pooch from the outset by attempting to blend the pair.

Just a personal point of view, but having been to Iraq, I couldn't care less if it fell into the sea - I don't feel that way about Afghanistan, so I could be biased.

[manualhaynes]

Sorry Manual but you screwed the pooch from the outset by attempting to blend the pair.


Actually it was Keith Vaz the Labour MP who compared the handling of both the Gurkhas and the Iraqi interpreters situation as the same, not me.

Iraqi interpreters did the job mainly for personal gain,

The Gurkhas were employed by the British government as mercenaries to fight in Asia. Any mercenary is only fighting for personal gain.

I don't feel that way about Afghanistan

Why? What is so different in Afghanistan? We have been defeated there before and we will be defeated there again.

[minigundiplomat]

Actually it was Keith Vaz the Labour MP who compared the handling of both the Gurkhas and the Iraqi interpreters situation as the same, not me.




Whoever, you seem to have picked up the baton.

The Gurkhas were employed by the British government as mercenaries to fight in Asia. Any mercenary is only fighting for personal gain.


29 VC's (IIRC) seems to be going a little beyond a pay cheque.


Why? What is so different in Afghanistan? We have been defeated there before and we will be defeated there again.

Not a popular sentiment on a forum where most go there, regardless of their personal beliefs. I have spent a lot of time in Afghanistan (Have You?) and I occasionally see a flash of promise and potential.

I don't know who you are, but I wouldnt poke you with the crappy end of a stick.

I think you have the answers you were looking for. Goodbye

[baffman]

As far as I am concerned, the Gurkhas and the Iraqi local staff are entirely separate issues.

Yet it is striking that such similar arguments are being deployed against both: "They only did it for the money." "They knew what they were signing up to." "They got paid, we owe them nothing more."

Not to mention dismissing honestly declared campaigns as "bandwagons".

[manualhaynes]

I have spent a lot of time in Afghanistan (Have You?) Well if you count time at Shaibah and on the MERT (Medical Emergency Response Team) at Bastion as a consultant anaesthetist, then the answer to your question is yes I have spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now perhaps it was wrong of me to write what I did about being defeated in Afghanistan on this forum, but you only need to read the history books to see what I mean and of course it was only my opinion. but I wouldnt poke you with the crappy end of a stick. Lets just hope you don't need my services and my pointy needles. Thank you for your constructive remarks though, they were very helpful to my request.

[Jumping_Jack]

Keith Vaz!!! :rolleyes: Even more credibility for the argument lost!!:D

[minigundiplomat]

Well if you count time at Shaibah and on the MERT (Medical Emergency Response Team) at Bastion as a consultant anaesthetist, then the answer to your question is yes I have spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan.



In which case I apologise for the crappy stick comment. I still think your argument is flawed on a number of levels, and possibly a little simplistic in comparing 'terps and Ghurka's.

MGD

[cockney steve]

Whilst Dallas nailed most points of importance, in post #2,

(this treacherous, duplicitous and morally bankrupt Gov't )

I think there is a greater problem with the abandonment of those who sold their services for less than 12 months.

This sounds very much like a parallel to the weaselly "20 year service " condition they tried to impose on Ghurkas.

The honourable way forward , would be the granting of CONDITIONAL residency..... if fair and reasonable "citizenship parameters" were set, transgressors would expect repatriation.

Just because they can't keep tabs on ne'er do wells, Eastern Block criminals, illegal immigrants, seditious Mullahs (with/without hooks and eyes, and no, I don't mean Broon :\ ) doesn't mean we should cast them aside.

When I was a (bad) salesman, I was given a nugget of wisdom.

"Don't knock the opposition, you may work for them one day"

We crap on these people at our peril, do these Whitehall cretins seriously think that future Iraquis will queue -up to offer their services?

Sure, it's a difficult issue, but that's why we pay such large wages to these administrative knobbers....to get a properly thought -out policy that meets the UK's long termneeds.