Meet Theresa May as new Pharaoh and Britain as new Egypt
January 19 2016 By Abiodun Giwa
Theresa May
The idea by the Britain's Home Secretary, Theresa May that non-EU immigrants who wish to live in Britain should earn 35000 pounds or be deported, came in the news reports, shortly before the celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. on Monday, January 18, when it was posted on the Facebook, by concerned observers.
Certain people in Britain are reportedly working to collect signatures, which they say will make the parliament May's idea, and stop her if necessary.
About 2000 signatures have reportedly been collected as at Monday January 18, while about 100,000 signatures are said to be required for the idea to be debated by the MPs, and 10,000 for the government to take action, according to Joshua Harbord, the convener of the signatures collection, in anticipation of stopping May's idea from fulfillment.
According to a story in the Independent on January 15 2016, titled "Theresa May urged to rethink new 35000 pounds earnings threshold for non-EU immigrants as teachers face deportation," In the story, Harbord said that he has decided to take action because he knows a number of incredibly upset and scared people, who will be affected by May's idea but who are voiceless.
But the immediate question is that why has it taken so long for the matter to come before the public, given that May has made his idea known since 2012? Why has it taken so long for people to realize there are voiceless people to be affected by this idea and it is only about three months for the idea to become effective that an effort begins to stop May?
Secondly, why does Harbord think that the government will act to upturn May's idea, when no one in the Parliament and the government has raised any issue against the idea since 2012?
May's biography shows that she is an appointee of David Cameron, first as home secretary, and women and equality in 2010. But in 2012, May rescinded the women and equality portfolio, but held to the home secretary portfolio. And her first major idea as home secretary after she has abandoned to play a role on women and equality is the non-EU immigrants' earning threshold.
People who are aware of the development have asked about why only non-EU immigrants are being encouraged by May to earn so much and if they cannot to leave Britain? What does she or Britain stand to gain from such openly discriminatory stance against a large number of people all because they are not EU immigrants?
One maddening clause that has unsettled many observers about what is now being described as May's inglorious idea is the deportation clause in her idea. The clause easily reminds people about the scriptural Egypt in the book of Exodus, which has some similarities and differences in comparison to May's idea. and the burdening of the children of Israel as strangers in Egypt.
The Israelis were immigrants in Egypt, just like the non-EU-immigrants who are the targets of May in her idea about how to make them productive and increase their earnings and to deport them if they cannot live up to expectation.The story in the book of Exodus says that after the Israelis have become productive and have increased in number, a new Pharaoh arises who disfavors the Israelis and asks that the Israelis' newly born male children be killed, and that the Israelis be burdened in their daily work undertakings to make life difficult for them.
The Israelis were willing to leave Egypt to a promised land, unlike the immigrants in Britain who don't want to return to their homestead, because they believe that Britain is the promised land, where jobs are available compared to their home countries. The Israelis were burdened by making them to do double the job to stop them demanding to leave to go worship God in the wilderness. The immigrants in Britain are also being burdened by forceful demand that they make certain amount of income or be deported.
What this development has done is to cast Theresa May as the new Pharaoh and Britain as the new Egypt. As the oldest serving home secretary in the history of Britain in 100 years and who has been retained in office by Cameron despite her inglorious idea shows the inner side of Cameron as prime minister and his own agenda as prime minister. And rather for the British MPs to confront May's ignoble idea of discrimination, they have behaved as if discrimination does not exist in Britain or part of Britain's heritage, choose to discuss Donald Trump's idea about a temporary ban on Muslims in the United States,, to allow the people's representative find out what is happening and recommend how to keep the homeland safe.
They call Trump all sorts of unprintable names, but keep their eyes and attention away from their own Pharaoh, to whom home the office of home secretary has become a personal property from which she cannot be separated and whose idea will only help casts Britain as a new Egypt that unjustly makes life difficult for innocent people who are seen to be vibrant, well endowed, hardworking and incomparable to their peers, whose right of ownership is that they own the land. Does the British MP's silence over May's act of discrimination not an agreement with her? And the question that many observers are asking is why are British leaders afraid of non-EU immigrants, despite the threat that May's idea constitutes to the teaching and the nursing professions in the country?
Do they think that like the Pharaohs of yore who ordered the killing of newly born male Israelis to avoid male Israelis from competing with them over their throne, that the non-EU immigrants have become a target to be burdened and throw out for the fear of competing in future for leadership positions? A study of Sociology of Immigration as a class work in college teaches one so much about how humans travel in search of livelihood and survival and that no one can call a particular place his or her home.
In such a class, one learns about what propels people to migrate and emigrate. You learn about the pull and the push factors that encourage them. And you learnt that there is hardly a place people have settled that they have not met some other people already living there, and that in the past such people who have been on the land have had to be overpowered and their land taken from them. But modern day immigrants don't have the power to force their way like the colonialists of the past, whose wealth is from the places they have colonized after visitations without visas. But today, people from places colonized and their wealth taken away, have to obtain visas to the lands their wealth have been taken and even have to be treated like the scums of the land.
Certain people in Britain are reportedly working to collect signatures, which they say will make the parliament May's idea, and stop her if necessary.
About 2000 signatures have reportedly been collected as at Monday January 18, while about 100,000 signatures are said to be required for the idea to be debated by the MPs, and 10,000 for the government to take action, according to Joshua Harbord, the convener of the signatures collection, in anticipation of stopping May's idea from fulfillment.
According to a story in the Independent on January 15 2016, titled "Theresa May urged to rethink new 35000 pounds earnings threshold for non-EU immigrants as teachers face deportation," In the story, Harbord said that he has decided to take action because he knows a number of incredibly upset and scared people, who will be affected by May's idea but who are voiceless.
But the immediate question is that why has it taken so long for the matter to come before the public, given that May has made his idea known since 2012? Why has it taken so long for people to realize there are voiceless people to be affected by this idea and it is only about three months for the idea to become effective that an effort begins to stop May?
Secondly, why does Harbord think that the government will act to upturn May's idea, when no one in the Parliament and the government has raised any issue against the idea since 2012?
May's biography shows that she is an appointee of David Cameron, first as home secretary, and women and equality in 2010. But in 2012, May rescinded the women and equality portfolio, but held to the home secretary portfolio. And her first major idea as home secretary after she has abandoned to play a role on women and equality is the non-EU immigrants' earning threshold.
People who are aware of the development have asked about why only non-EU immigrants are being encouraged by May to earn so much and if they cannot to leave Britain? What does she or Britain stand to gain from such openly discriminatory stance against a large number of people all because they are not EU immigrants?
One maddening clause that has unsettled many observers about what is now being described as May's inglorious idea is the deportation clause in her idea. The clause easily reminds people about the scriptural Egypt in the book of Exodus, which has some similarities and differences in comparison to May's idea. and the burdening of the children of Israel as strangers in Egypt.
The Israelis were immigrants in Egypt, just like the non-EU-immigrants who are the targets of May in her idea about how to make them productive and increase their earnings and to deport them if they cannot live up to expectation.The story in the book of Exodus says that after the Israelis have become productive and have increased in number, a new Pharaoh arises who disfavors the Israelis and asks that the Israelis' newly born male children be killed, and that the Israelis be burdened in their daily work undertakings to make life difficult for them.
The Israelis were willing to leave Egypt to a promised land, unlike the immigrants in Britain who don't want to return to their homestead, because they believe that Britain is the promised land, where jobs are available compared to their home countries. The Israelis were burdened by making them to do double the job to stop them demanding to leave to go worship God in the wilderness. The immigrants in Britain are also being burdened by forceful demand that they make certain amount of income or be deported.
What this development has done is to cast Theresa May as the new Pharaoh and Britain as the new Egypt. As the oldest serving home secretary in the history of Britain in 100 years and who has been retained in office by Cameron despite her inglorious idea shows the inner side of Cameron as prime minister and his own agenda as prime minister. And rather for the British MPs to confront May's ignoble idea of discrimination, they have behaved as if discrimination does not exist in Britain or part of Britain's heritage, choose to discuss Donald Trump's idea about a temporary ban on Muslims in the United States,, to allow the people's representative find out what is happening and recommend how to keep the homeland safe.
They call Trump all sorts of unprintable names, but keep their eyes and attention away from their own Pharaoh, to whom home the office of home secretary has become a personal property from which she cannot be separated and whose idea will only help casts Britain as a new Egypt that unjustly makes life difficult for innocent people who are seen to be vibrant, well endowed, hardworking and incomparable to their peers, whose right of ownership is that they own the land. Does the British MP's silence over May's act of discrimination not an agreement with her? And the question that many observers are asking is why are British leaders afraid of non-EU immigrants, despite the threat that May's idea constitutes to the teaching and the nursing professions in the country?
Do they think that like the Pharaohs of yore who ordered the killing of newly born male Israelis to avoid male Israelis from competing with them over their throne, that the non-EU immigrants have become a target to be burdened and throw out for the fear of competing in future for leadership positions? A study of Sociology of Immigration as a class work in college teaches one so much about how humans travel in search of livelihood and survival and that no one can call a particular place his or her home.
In such a class, one learns about what propels people to migrate and emigrate. You learn about the pull and the push factors that encourage them. And you learnt that there is hardly a place people have settled that they have not met some other people already living there, and that in the past such people who have been on the land have had to be overpowered and their land taken from them. But modern day immigrants don't have the power to force their way like the colonialists of the past, whose wealth is from the places they have colonized after visitations without visas. But today, people from places colonized and their wealth taken away, have to obtain visas to the lands their wealth have been taken and even have to be treated like the scums of the land.
