"The fact that the decision to destroy landing cards for these people was taken by a Labour government in 2009 "
Why do you people do this Bozo - are human beings so unimportant to you and yours for you to make political gain out of their misery ?
Immigrants were not given official documents in the Windrush days
These letters from The Times, from two people with insider knowledge of the affair (particularly the first writer) makes the situation of Commonwealth citizens entering Britain perfectly clear.
Jim Carroll

Windrush papers
Sir,
I am a bit bemused by the talk of Windrush arrivals in the 1950s and early 1960s having either landing cards or registration slips that were retained by the Home Office and reportedly destroyed comparatively recently. There was no immigration control relating to Commonwealth citizens at all before the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962; on arrival in the UK they showed their passports to an immigration officer and were allowed to enter no landing card, no stamp in the passport, nothing to record their arrival. Hence, I cannot think what these documents could have been.
The 1962 Act introduced a control of a sort but in its early days it was fairly light It was not until about late 1965 that a time limit of six months was imposed on Commonwealth visitors, but even then there was no automatic check-out procedure; if the immigration officer wished a person’s departure to be confirmed he completed the landing card and indicated in the passport that a card should be completed on departure, again by the immigration officer, and submitted to confirm embarkation. It was thus possible at that time for a Commonwealth citizen to be admitted for six months with no record of the arrival and no one would know if they left or overstayed.
PETER HILLMAN
Former chief immigration officer (Immigration Service 1965-2010), Horsham, W Sussex

Sir,
In my 33 years as a judge I dealt with thousands of immigration appeals. It is certainly the case that when Theresa May was home secretary she deliberately created a hostile environment for immigrants. On her watch immigration law, never simple, became of byzantine, bizarre complexity and with increasingly stringent and draconian provisions. This was not helped by the fact that the Home Office was, and manifestly still is, dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. If you are not an immigrant you may think that all this does not matter to you. It does, because it affects the rule of law and, thus, every man, woman and child in this country.
DR STEPHEN PACEY
North Muskham, Notts