To require visas for â€?Britonsâ€?
of Pakistani origin. The Telegraphâ€™s comment thread on the story is interesting, too.
It is a mix (no surprise, there, I suppose) of limp Leftish comments bemoaning such unequal treatment of â€?Britonsâ€?
and the evils of America generally, and more robust comments saying itâ€™s a good thing the American government is awake to the threat â€“ how I wish that were true â€“ and the British government needs to wake up
â€“ which is certainly true. [US pushes for visa control on Pakistani Britons,
By Alex Spillius in Washington and Philip Johnston, May 3, 2007]
The pithiest remark is in the very first comment, from one Tom Dixon:
Having a British passport does not make someone British any more than being born in a stable makes one a horse.
Hip, Hipâ€¦! As good a one-line summary of the National Question as I think Iâ€™ve ever seen.
But I thought this comment, from one Redwing, has an unfortunate ring of truth too:
As an expat, now an American, the USA has it all wrong. All terrorists have to do is hop on a plane to Mexico, then come in with the droves of illegal immigrants that regularly cross the border. There are reports of illegals being deported numerous times, only to get back in very quickly. It will be another waste of taxpayers` money.
So is this a real border control initiative, as our dual-citizen homeland security capo, Judge Chertoff, assures us, or is it merely window-dressing to help us gringo suckers swallow the coming illegal alien amnesty/â€?guestâ€?
-worker programs? Last time I checked, George W. Bush was still President of the United States. I think I have my answerâ€¦