On immigration

I hardly ever write about immigration.  I think we talked far too much about immigration between 1995 and 2005.  That's not because I thought our analysis and policies wrong all through that time - as it happens, I think we were largely correct in our analysis and policy responses in 1997-2001 and badly wrong from 2003-2005.  But, as I've remarked before, a political party's choice of topics is an important signal to the voters concerning what it cares about, and making immigration one of your central concerns identifies you as having an extremely right-wing set of policy priorities.  That doesn't mean you should never mention it at all, but I do think it means we should steer clear of any sustained focus on it for now, given how obsessed we've appeared with it in the recent past.

What has motivated me to write today has been all this discussion in the past few days of "40 years since the Rivers of Blood" and the many statements that Enoch Powell achieved quite the opposite of his intentions with that notorious speech.

Let me put a few cards on the table.  I have no intention of trying to support Powell here.  In my view "Enoch Powell" has long ceased to be the name of a historical individual, and has become that of an icon, a bogeyman.  Conservative politicians who, on occasion, try to say things along the lines of "Powell was right" are fools.  Those are battles they aren't going to win.  Furthermore, by saying things like that these mainstream politicians will appear to many to endorse the views of some unpleasant people who mean something quite different by "Powell was right".  I presume the instinct of such Conservative politicians is essentially noble - as they see it, they are trying to oppose the traducing of the memory of a great man by his enemies.  But the wise man knows when to withdraw.

Now, as it happens, I disagree with even the "what Powell really meant" analysis of his case.  I do not think that having extremely high turnover in one's population - lots of immigration and emigration - will of necessity lead to high social tension, violence and oppression.  That does not mean that I am an unambiguous supporter of "multiculturalism", in the sense that that dangerous term has come to be used recently - as meaning a belief in ghetto-isation with no attempt to develop a unified national culture.  As I have remarked previously, I find US-style "synthesis" ("melting pot") models of social integration an appealing route to consider further, whilst rejecting neo-assimilationism.

The above notwithstanding, I do want to stand up against the current "Rivers of Blood" discussion in one particular.  The BBC in most of its coverage, and Trevor Phillips today, have suggested repeatedly that "Mr Powell discredited any talk of [immigration] planning or control", and hence "gave rise to a 'migration policy in which government knew too little about what was going on'".  Even by the lax standards of modern journalism, these statements are extraordinary.

Up until 1962, all Commonwealth citizens had an unambiguous right to come to live and work in the UK.  Legislation in 1962 and 1968 restricted this somewhat, but the key measure was the 1971 Immigration Act, which meant that by 1972, holders of work permits, or people with parents or grandparents born in the UK could gain entry - essentially ending primary immigration from the Commonwealth.  That system found its ultimate end in the 1981 Nationality Act.  The campaign that Powell was running - the campaign against unrestricted immigration from the Commonwealth - was one in which he was eventually completely victorious.

Now as it happens, I don't think that that framework was as necessary or helpful as probably most Conservatives do.  But what I find absurd is that Powell can be so unreflectively attacked and dismissed by people who support the immigration controls that he succeeded in having enacted (i.e. they are the ones who in fact believe that "Powell was right") whilst at the same time declaring glibly that he failed!

One last thing: Isn't forty years now a rather long time ago?  Why must we keep on harking back to a debate conducted in another world - a world of rhetoric we can no longer understand and issues that everyone has forgotten?  What does any of this remotely have to do with debates about immigration from Poland or Lithuania?  Can't we now just let Powell and his speech and what it "really" meant rest in peace and get on with the debates of our own time?

Comments

[Boris the Turk]

We have lost complete control of immigration:

1. An EU citizen can just turn , no questions asked - more than 1 million aready have.
2. Citizens from non EU countries can gain citizenship in any of the 25 EU states and then come here, including the thousands of illegals given amnesty in Italy and Spain.
3. Those applying by legal means from non -EU countries can and do easily bypass tests and checks through unscruperlous means
4. There is nothing to stop most illegal immigrants arriving here and very little done to remove them.
5.Likewise with asylum seekers.

And the worst part is the PC brigade who repsect and celibrate everyone's culture but mine - I am English and now feel like a stranger in my country of birth.

[Thomas]

I want to take issue with what you think is some sort of model of 'melting pot'.

I am American and am a doctoral student in a top American research university. Despite multicultural maxims that with greater education we have greater tolerance, I feel I have certainly come to resent the presence of other peoples around me more and more. I do not mean that absolutely, in the strict racist sense that other races disgust me. Since most other graduate students are foreign, most of my friends are. However, even at this level of education, I find myself surrounded mainly (2/3) by people from third world countries whose education systems specialise in maths and one or two technical subjects. Everyone speaks Mandarin, Cantonese, Hindi, Tamil, Gujarati, Singhalese, Turkish, etc. Nobody adapts to the local culture where such exists, namely, in conventions of social politeness regarding your behaviour in public areas. Out of all the foreigners, only the Christians really make American and European friends, everyone else keeps to their own kind, cooks only their own (often quite smelly but apparently that's our problem) national food, keeps their own household customs, and are without regard for the schedule by which people in this country live. Beyond this, it is alienating that low-to-mid level employees of the university are increasingly first-language Spanish speakers, often with student assistants from aforementioned countries. Therefore, at a top competitive university using English as the recognised linguistic medium, every piece of communication contains basic grammatical and spelling errors.

Statistically, only a small minority of these people are ever going home. They are going to stay here and get a high-paying research job (probably not academic), import a bride or marry one of their own kind here, and never really have to integrate.

I, for one, am leaving to go to Norway. The culture of people around whom I might have to live over there is probably more familiar and I can learn Norwegian faster than these folks can learn English.

I am not sure that the 'melting pot' ever lived up to its mythology. Immigration in late 19th-early 20th centuries put huge strains on local infrastructure and provoked a resurgence of the KKK in Northern states. It also has today the dangerous and annoying consequence that people use a history of immigration as a reason why we cannot now limit further immigration. But it did work *better* when we were dealing with primarily European immigration.

If you wish to be a conservative and defend your culture, please review your thoughts on immigration. If you wish to be a capitalist above all, state your intentions. I guarantee you, though, even if the Tories talked too much about immigration in the '01 and '05 election, if they had only talked about taxes and spending, they would have done much worse. Immigration, crime, and Europe were the only issues on which the public had even to more trust for Conservatives compared to Labour. The public are socially conservative still on several points, but not economically liberal.

[Tony Makara]

The number of EU migrant workers should be index-linked to levels of unemployment. All immigrants should be required to learn English and all official documentation should be in English. All government funded community groups should be wound down so that we don't have public money be used to create ethnic societies within British society. All positive discrimination must end. All immigrants convicted of planning or undertaking crime should be deported immediately after serving their custodial sentence. A new crime of 'subversion' should be introduced to deport all those involved in anti-British activities.

[Pooter]

I too am astonished that Powell’s Birmingham speech is being blamed for the cultural divisions in our society, and that this view is being repeated so that it is well on the way to becoming orthodox opinion.

We do not have to speculate as to what Powell “really meant”: the text of the speech is plain enough, the words unambiguous. He was warning against

“the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences ........”

In short, he was warning against what has become known as multiculturalism, or as he called it, quoting another local MP, “communalism”.

Yes, we do need to move on; but I despair that Powell, an outstanding, far-sighted and honourable man, is associated only with the Birmingham speech, is ignorantly enlisted as an ally by rabble-rousers from the nastier parts of the political spectrum, and now is being blamed for ill-thought out social policies that had their origins in the 1960s.

[Vincent McKenzie]

"Can't we now just let Powell and his speech and what it "really" meant rest in peace and get on with the debates of our own time?

Tell that to Enoch Powell!

[Tony Makara]

When I worked in a textile mill the many Asian workers at the mill were allowed to stop work to pray and have little meetings in the smoke room while the rest of us had to work and at times even do their work while they were away. They were fully paid for the time they were not working and we were paid no extra for taking over the burden of their work while they went into religious reflection. When a member of our group complained we were told by the boss that he was sympathetic to our complaints but said that he was powerless to change things. As you can imagine this built up a great deal of resentment among the non-Asian workers, who were white and black, and created a them-and-us mentality. This is just one example out of millions of similar examples that show why we have problems with multiculturalism in our country. When certain groups are seen to get favours and other groups are positively discriminated against it breeds resentment. I want to see a fair and just society, without racism, without discrimination, but so long as so-called 'positive discrimination' exists we haven't a hope in hell of breaking down barriers. One law for them, should be replaced by, one law for all.

[Christina Speight]

This is a disgraceful posting by Andrew Lilico. One of the reasons we can't continue to denigrate one of the greatest political figures of the post-war world (and most of the time he was a Tory member - but always a conservative) is that the 2nd rate leader the party has now chose to sack a brilliant candidate fom Enoch's neck of the woods for say he was right. Of course he was right - go read his speech in full - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/06/do0607.xml

For too long we've danced to the tune of the Labour Party who succeeded with lies in denigrating a great man. We've let them and Andrew Lilico is showing the same politically correct cowardice as the party's useless leader.

The fact that the EU is providing much of the current immigration is frankly a red herring. It's a different problem. The EU immigrants may be overwhelming but they are more likely over time to assimilate - or, like the Poles, return home - unlike the invasive and destructive Muslims fetching wives and other relatives from Asia.

And please don't quote the polls at me. If ever there was a case of winning because of the lunacies of one's opponents this would be it. WHAT have the Tories to offer that can be used as a rallying point? Nothing

[Jack Stone]

Ms Speight. The vast majority of the Asian community here are law abiding, hard working, highly skilled and educaated people who have never claimed anything from the state and done there upmost to work hard to provide for there families.
To attack them the way you just have and make out as if there a sort of enemy within is outrageous, disgusting and unforgiveable. You should be totally ashamed of yourself.

[Boris the Turk]

Jack, your point may have some truth in it, however-

The vast Majortiy of muggers are black
The vast majority of Bangladeshis are living on benefits
The vast majority of pimps are Eastern European
1 in 5 murders is committed by a foriegn national
The vast majority of gun related crime is black
The vast majority of fraud is carried out by Nigerians
All those either convicted of or awaiting trial for terrorist crimes are muslim
The vast majority of whites have had enough and THE VAST MAJORITY OF POLITICAINS ARE TOO SCARED TO SAY ANYTHING, LET ALONE DO ANYTHING. Enoch was right and The Race relations industry, like a scene from Animal Farm is trying to twist it around!

[David Sergeant]

Ms Speight your contributions just get more unpleasent.

Some time ago in a Powell discusion I wrote that he was only one third right. On third was right to raise the subject, one third wrong to use extreme language and one third wrong to use racist language. The effect was to put the Conservative party permamently on the back foot over immigration until Cameron was able to raise it recently. Given that the left was inclined to favour it to get votes, Powell has some responsibility for to-day's mess.

And "one of the greatest political figures of the post war world" would never give a speech as flawed as that.

[Jack Stone]

You do not condemn whole religions or races because some do wrong.I am afraid you are just parroting BNP propaganda.

[Sam Tarran]

The problem is that Enoch Powell's speech does still matter forty years on, because, for the most part, no one seems to have learned anything from it. Politicians sometimes like to talk "tough" on immigration, but no one ever wants to face the issue head on, and no one wants to admit the simple fact that a society with a lot of ethnic divisions will not be a stable one for any lengthy period.

Apparently, "multiculturalism" - called "communalism" by Powell - is accepted as having failed, and we are supposed to have a "debate" about integration and immigration. Fine. But I've heard that line countless times since 2005. There are two issues with a "debate": first, it's near impossible to discuss the racial side of things. Second, as we twitter on debating, immigrants continue to pour into the country. And although many are now white Eastern Europeans, there are still plenty of non-white foreigners coming in. Even so, cultural division can almost be as dangerous as ethnic division.

Immigration may not be seen by the political elite as a subject that "gets votes", but it has affetced, and continues to effect, such a wide variety of issues, that it can't be ignored. Similar, in a way, to the issue of the European Union.

[Tony Makara]

There are problems of a different nature in all communities. Black communities suffer from gun-gang culture, white communities suffer from anti-social yobbism and the Asian communities have problems with radicalism, only really the Chinese community seems free of large-scale problems. However the biggest problem is that all these communities are moving further away from each other rather than integrating, so on that point Enoch was right, what this will lead to only time will tell, but the riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley are probably only a taster of what is to come. I hope not because I would like to see all communities living in harmony, but with each passing day communities become more entrenched and insular looking.

[David Parker]

Nothing is more likely to turn Enoch Powell's warnings into a self fulfilling prophesy than the current culture of political correctness and left wing liberalism. Regardless of one's individual views about immigration, or the assimilation of existing immigrants, these are subjects which urgently need to be freely and openly debated, however strong the views expressed, by both politicians and the public.

Sadly, the Conservative party is almost as guilty as most of the others in pandering to the cult of political correctness and allowing this contentious issue to handled with kid gloves,or swept under the carpet whenever possible.

Sadly, however, not even the most practical or enlightened immigration policy will produce any worthwhile results until we have a Government whose Ministeries are capable of administering that policy conscientiously, competently and effectively. Unfortunately our current Government's culture of concealment and incompetence has permeated so deep into the staff of almost all of its Ministeries that we do not even know the real size of the total immigrant population, let alone have complete, or even accurate, statistics upon which to base an enlightened debate.

[p]

Boris the Turk.

I agree with your points 1 and not 3,4,5.

To be fair the Government has introduced measures to stop non EU residents getting into the UK. For an example if you are flying from Sri lanka there is a UK official at the airport checking all documentation before they board the plane.

How do you know that you are English? Just because you were born here does not make you English. All these days We thought Boris is English. Now we know that he the Great Grandson of Mr.Ali.

Have you done any research on your family tree? Even the Windsors cnnot claim they are English.

Are you going to send our Queeen back to Germany?

I am proud to be British and also a Conservative (Don't know how long for).

Immigration is a problem and we have to solve this problem without getting emotional.You also have to be greatfult most of the immigrants who have contributed to this Country. I don't think we will have a good Cricket or Soccer team if we didn't have any immigrants.

[Patrick Ratnaraja]

sorry it should be Patrick Ratnaraja not p. I prefer to use my real name.

[Christina Speight]

David Sergeant - Try reading what Powell said - I gave you the link;

Jack Stone I ignore. Every posting from on any subject could come straight from - and probvably does - NuLabour HQ

Cameron that 2nd rate leader stoked it all up by sacking a promising and excellent candidate also from the West Midlands. What's the matter with the man. This week with the world in crisis he's telling us to "Vote Blue Go Green". Since this is shorthand for signing up to the Global Lunacy of warming - which incidentally increased food production - has actually gone into reverse and is causing food shortages .

Powell and those who understand what he actually said are right and all the neo-liberal consensus are wrong, wrong wrong.

In passing I would mention that before the speech in question I was lucky enough to be asked to join him for dinner from Euston to Wolverhampton. It was a stunning experience - he was the nicest of men and was still so just before he died when I heard him talking to a music society.

Now Messrs Stone and Sergeant crawl back under your stones.

[Boris the Turk]

Patrick,

I have researched my family history and I am as far as the records show I am English so far back into the late 1700s. However my real point is that I feel a stranger in the country of my birth and no one has ever asked the indiginous popluation if that is what they wanted and now we are not allowed to dare mention it for fear of being called a racist.

Jack,

If the ones who did wrong were actually dealt with then the issue would evaporate but the police are too busy interviewing Basil Brush. I am suprised you didn't call me more explicitly "racist" (as opposed to your slimey undertone) - that's what it normally done when anyone dares to raise the issue of race form a white persons persective. Just remember that Enforced Mulitculuralism and Culural Ethnic Cleansing is what the do gooding liberals are all getting their knickers in a twist about over Tibet and fair comment I'd say. But mention that for the UK and they all shout "racsist" -

[Jack Stone]

Ms Speight. No one as ever said that Enoch Powell wasn`t good company and a nice man.Mind you many said the same thing about Adolf Hitler!
Boris the Turk. I didn`t call you racist because I have been warned by the right-wing editor of this site before not to use that word but as they say if the cap fits!

[Boris the Turk]

Jack - Well you cap is clear, it is red and has a hammer and a sickle on the front. Pleased you are on here though as it keeps the decent people on this site motivated to wipe you and your insidious bunch of cultural maxists out on May 1st - what a fitting day to see that happen.

[Jack Stone]

Boris. I don`t know what planet you live on but on the one I live on its not marxist to be against racism its called decency but of course you clearly don`t know the meaning of the word.

[David Sergeant]

"Now Messrs Stone and Sergeant crawl back under your stones."

Posted by: Christina Speight | April 20, 2008 at 18:32

No need to confirm my point so emphatically Christina. I read Powell's speech when he said it and he really was stupid the way he put it resulting in immense difficulties in debating immigration contributing to to-day's mess.

[Tim Montgomerie]

Can we raise the tone on this thread please or I'll shut it down?

[Boris the Turk]

Jack,

It is certainly marxist to attempt close down any debate on race by directly or indirectly implying rascism instead of addressing the points made by another person (which is what you are doing); it's an age old tactic and you marxists have all done it well for along time, that's why this country has such a problem with immigration and immigration related issues such as muslims blowing people up on buses and trains and 1 in 5 murders being caaried out by a non British national. By the way, your petty insults only underpin your credentials as a cultural marxist. Anyway goodnight (some of us have to go to work in the morning) and once again thanks for all the stirling work you are doing in keeping us decent folk motivated.

[Jack Stone]

Boris the fact is you seem to imply that because some people of a certain group do wrong that condemns all of that group. that`s not right or decent.
My views are not marxist and I am sure they are exactly the same as David Cameron`s and every other member of the party`s leadership on this subject.

[Pooter]

So where do we go from here; which, I suspect, was the point of Andrew Lilico’s original posting?

There cannot be a well-informed person in the country who seriously believes that ethnically divided towns and cities, the result of forty years of multiculturalism, are acceptable, can there? Trevor Phillips has said they are not, and I suspect that Jack Straw might well agree; do not most reasonable people find the divisions unsettling, not conducive to a society at ease with itself?

We do not need apocalyptic metaphors, but I genuinely believe that that the tensions in our cities are as threatening to our nation as global warming or tremors in the banking system. It needs someone of real statesmanship to stand up and explain, in measured tones, that something needs to be done as a matter of urgency, and that all parties should work together, using the best brains available, to ease our way out of this mess in which we find ourselves.

[niconoclast]

Ah, the days when conservatives had principles and values and weren't ashamed to express them! Long gone. We now have moral invertebrates,pretend conservatives,impostors,feeble minded cretins,mouthpieces of liberalism,pusilanimous,weak, timorous,pathetic,mealy mouthed time servers and power lusters.

[Boris the Turk]

Jack - you may well be right on PC/DC which is part of the problem not the solution. With regards to your self proclaimed monopoly on decency, my issues are with examples such as allowing asian muslim men in NW England to continue to groom young white girls for under age sex and then force them into prostituiton because the police fear being called racist. Do you agree this is wrong? (more likley you will deny it is happening which would definatley prove you are a marxist as this has been so widley reported even by Channel 4 of all places)

[Sunny]

I think this is the first time I've read something I can agree with on immigration on here. Maybe though, as a left-winger, that doesn't help the author with the accusations of being a closet-communist.

I think what's also interesting is that while recent immigration has primarily been of white origin, the commenters are complaining about people of non-white origin rubbing up against them. Should I be surprised?

[Christina Speight]

The thread goes up a blind alley because too many are not prepared to call a spade a spade. EU immigration will settle after a time and many will return to the home countries as circumstances change (It's happening with the Poles already as the pound falls against the euro ... and the zloty )

But the Asian immigrants are fiddling the system much of the time. The Danes have cut immigration by not allowing spouses in until they are 24+ and can speak Danish to some extent. Here generation after generation return to their countries of origin to find a spouse.

I notice nobody has commented on my point that the silly Cameron man chucked out a first rate candidate for agreeing with Powell when Powell has been amply proved right!

My point was not about Powell being nice - it was about him being one of the greatest politicians we've produced.

I see that David Sergeant " read Powell's speech when he said it". I suggest he might brush up his 40 year old memory box. I gave the link.

[Igirisu Jin]

Its clear that the issue of immigration stirs up a lot of people's angst. It does really bring up a large stereo field in terms of opinon and pushes people to their polar positions. There has to be a point though when the issue has to be addressed seriously. Government has to decide what is more important; fixing the problem, or making people feel better about it. If it was a disease, then it would be like deciding between treating the causes or the symptons, but unless a serious effort is made to understand what you're dealing with, you cannot know the best course to take. If politicians ignore the nature of the problem and treat only the symptons as they currently are in favour of, then as we know from disease, if it's serious you will delude yourself whilst prolonging the agony until it's all over.

You cannot hope to decide on what is happening until you look at the facts, you have to look at the statistics even if they are the third kind of lie, and even if they are upsetting to some people. There is always the Labour leadership who will twist facts to hold onto power (regardless of damage caused) and there will be the left wing public who would rather hide from reality because it upsets them too much. But again what that comes down to is whether or not government thinks fixing things in the long run is more important that not upsetting people in the short term.

Police have recently said that the overall crime levels havent changed much even with the influx of immigration, a point that the BBC wanted to strongly bring to our attention. The point they tried to play down however is that different ethnic groups tend to commit different types of crimes. The vast majority of violent crimes, muggings, murders, rapes etc are committed by people not of this land. The suspects on most wanted boards for violent crime at New Scotland Yard are all African or Asian in origin. The statistics show this because this is the case. They have been conveniently counted for us, so half the work is already done. People always jump to extremes without thinking about the data. The voters are jittery and emotional and so the politicians are jittery and emotional, but we should expect more from a government as a whole. Just because most people convicted of gun crimes are black, it doesn't mean all blacks will commit gun crimes. That is obvious to any sensible person. Having said that, the left would use that fallacy to set up a straw man and win popular support based on the emotions it stirs. People fears do not discriminate in that way either, they work on averages and probability, mixed in with some irrationality. If you know they if you were to be raped, that it would most likely be by a black man (which is true), then naturally, if you were a woman walking alone at night, you might be more wary of black men in general. People don't push themselves away from specific groups out of a cultural misunderstanding, they do it because of a statistical risk assessment. Even if their emotions are controlling them and they have in their heads made the situation worse than it is, their fears are coming from observations and reality.

The figures show us all the trends we need to see, the public feel all the trends they need to feel and it's just the politicians that like to pretend that none of it is real. But the public's fears are being played by the left and ignored by the right.

It is clear that in our country areas are divided up by ethnicity more than anything else. This pattern has created division and divided loyalties. Street gangs mainly come from specific ethnic groups. There are many street gangs in London, such as black, white, Asian gangs and even more defined groups of Jamaicans, Pakistanis, Somalians, Tamils, Bengalis, Sikhs, Turkish and East Asian street gangs. Religion is also a defining factor, with some gangs comprising solely Muslim, Sikh or Catholic members, for example.

When faced with people of different cultures, the left keeps telling us that we have to respect and celebrate their cultures. We have to respect their clothes, their customs, their music, their beliefs etc, but violence and crime are human traits too. Different groups from around the world have varying levels of violence in their cultures. When they come to the UK it is not only their food and songs they bring, it is the attitudes of their background in general. But when we notice these traits we are told we are wrong and bad people for doing so. We are encouraged to ignore these trends because unless we do, we are racists and evil. We cannot hide from these things, no matter if we are left or right because the criminals really don't care about our politics. When people from one country move into an area, they set up the area as a mini version of the place they came from. Chinatown is one example.. but imagine it were Somaliatown instead, or Little Mogadishu. You would avoid it like the plague, not because you didn't like Somalians, but because Somalia is one of the most violent places on Earth as we are told, people have a right to move their cultures over here. And if you are thinking, this is taking the point too far, I only have to point to the Turnpike Lane area of North London, the home of many Somalians and a significant Somali gang. Sikh, Pakistani and Bengali gangs are centred around Tower hamlets, Newham, Ealing, And Waltham Forest. Turkish gangs operate mainly in North London especially around the Hackney, Islington and Haringey areas. Black African and Caribbean gangs are spaced out around all over London with high gang activity for this demographic especially in South London. If we have large groups of ethnic minorities, fueling these behaviours, surely the best thing to do is to reduce them. We could put a cap on them coming in, remove the ones that behave in this way for good, and encourage immigrants to spread out and not group together. If we encouraged immigrants to share a British way of life, spread out, speaking our language, absorbing our culture, and not funding the opposite with tax payers money, then ethnic minorities and natives alike would not have to endure the trends we see every day stemming from multi-culturalism.

When the British invaded various countries, the people living there were quite rightly angry. Is it not obvious that the same would be true the other way around. Someone might seek to imply that the people of Britain don't deserve to feel invaded because the nation invaded others, but it wasn't the ordinary people that decided to invade anything. So when the government said to its people, okay now it's our turn and promoted the invasion of our country by foreign nationals, the people living here were quite fairly upset about it. This would've radicalised their views and pushed them to resently generalised views and racism. I suggest that it is not racism that seeked to prevent multi-culturalism and mass immigration, but the socialist ideals of multi-culturalism and mass immigration that had sparked large scale racism. In effect it is yet another example of left wing policies creating mass suffering through the left not understanding human beings. Having caused this mess, the left as washed its hands of it except to use the emotions involved for political gain. The only party that might like to fix it is the Conservatives. But these ethnic groups within our country are also within our system and so are also voters. To want to fix the problem might prevent gaining the power to to so in the first place.

[Igirisu Jin]

"This would've radicalised their views and pushed them to resently generalised views and racism." Should have read: This would've radicalised their views and pushed them to resentment, generalised views and racism. You'll have to forgive the rest of the typos and misplaced commas, it's late.

[Yet Another Anon]

The number of EU migrant workers should be index-linked to levels of unemployment
The simplest thing is to withdraw from the EU and European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice, EU migrants would then have no more right to enter the UK than people from anywhere else in the world, indeed given Britain's Commonwealth links they might have less right.

I have no problem with significant levels of immigration, indeed most are hard working doing jobs that others are not prepared to do, pay tax and National Insurance and are more socially Conservative than most indigenous people, I dispute that they have any adverse effect on unemployment, indeed their work generates wealth and more wealth in the economy will tend to contribute towards lower unemployment.

The focus should switch heavily onto fighting crime and terrorism and whatever means are neccessary should be deployed to keep criminal and terrorist elements from entering the country and dealing with those that are already here - incarcerating or or executing them whatever their ethnicity, whether of British ethnicity or other. As for drains on services the answer is to restrict those services, cut Health spending and public spending overall, increase eligibility requirements especially residency requirements and commercialise many public services (charging for education and healthcare for example) or restrict public services overall.

To deal with indigenous unemployment the answer is to cut welfare replacing coverage of housing, medical and education costs with low interest loans repayable in a similar way to the current Student Loans but with no age limits of requirement to repay and debts recoverable out of the deceased's estates; abolish almost all labour market regulation including the minimum wage and Agricultural Wages Board and allow people to price themselves into work - a bag of sugar has a value and so does work done, the government doesn't apply price regulation, so why apply wage rate regulation.

[Vincent McKenzie]

This is the problem, people like you will not let the debate move forward. Debate means debate, but you still want to control what can and cannot be said. Having read the above, it seems to me you have no clue as to where you stand, you're not even on the fence. I want more immigration, as much as possible so I can what people like you running round in circles trying to catch your tail.

[bexie]

Personally, I believe that we should have open borders.

On the whole, people who have the guts to up sticks and make the move to another country are more energetic and more likely to create wealth than the indigenous population. I could repeat the statistics and analysis of CLS but you can all look them up in various threads on freestudents.blogspot.com.

The issue here is not with immigration per se, but with the differing and exceptional treatment meeted out to various groups. To the casual observer there are far too many people who have come here, alledgedly to escape the myriad problems in their home country, only to want to create the same social, religous and economic situation that has made their home countries complete toilets. This seems to be born out in the thread as above.

elsewhere someone far more eminent in the party noted that the problems arise in the treatment of refugees, based on treaties designed to help people from neighboring countries escaping the devastation and score settling in post war Europe.

The argument then goes that based on this there is no reason that we should be accepting scores of refugees from distant countries. Except that that is also something of an illusion. Look at the refugee statistics and you will see that the vast majority of refugees are in displacement camps, usually in awful conditions, adjacent to their homelands.

So how to deal with it?

Firstly, treat refugees as refugees, not as prospective citizens. That means that rather than being abandoned in and around the community, they are placed in camps, with their own community, with support and care familiar with their culture. The status of refugee carries an assumption that it is a temporary arrangement and one that ends with the individual returning to their home. If they want to immigrate, then let them apply like everyone else, learn the language and traditions of this country, pass an exam, take an oath of allegiance and then settle in.

Second, for immigrees, there should be a far longer period of probation than now offered. Fine after 4 years, give them a probationary citizen status, but on the basis that they have to make a contribution to public funds before they draw on them, ie, if they have a working permit and permission to stay, they do so on the basis they are working and contributing, and will return home should they be unable to continue to do so within the first 5 years. Before the leftists howl at this, it is what most other countries do.

Third, we should have a basis in immigration law, that any offense that carries a custodial sentance will result in the immeadiate deportation of a probationary or permit to stay resident, regardless of the status of them, or the state of the country they are in. Immigration is a priviledge not a right and if they choose to mess in their nest then they should go. Preferably with the gangs of "human rights" lawyers who insist on muggers, fraudsters and burglers staying next door to us.

Genuine immigration has brought a richness to our culture, far beyond the original Pictish and Celtic settlers. Not all Nigerians are fradusters, very few Muslims want to blow us up, many Muslims would not associate them as belonging to the same religion. Some of our greatest modern businessmen and women are of Asian, Middle European and African stock, so why not embrace them and encourage them?

Deal with the problems where they are and stop trying to slate all immigrants as the issue.

[Igirisu Jin]

Bexie, I agree with many of your points and ways to deal with the problems caused by many immigrants. And it seems you agree with me that setting up versions of their own cultures (that have led to the failing of their own countries) in our country, is not what we want at all. It is not every immigrant that is the problem, and it has nothing to do with skin colour at all, but has everything to do with imported behaviours from their background cultures. If immigration was managed properly, partly using the methods you brought up, then these problems would be dealt with.

I can't agree with your first point though. Open boarders would not help anything at all. By having open boarders we couldn't possibly hope to control immigration, and our security would be compromissed. Immigration needs tight controls and zero tollerance for those not respecting the opertunity to live here.

As well as the behaviour of many immigrants causing us major problems, we also have huge problems caused by over population. We are not able to cope with the population explosion we are faced with. People within the country breeding when they shouldn't is bad enough, but importing more is insane. We simply don't have the room for it. Our infrastructure can barely cope. One immigrant comes here and within a short space of time, their whole family has joined them, then they breed at a rate far greater than our own. Immigration needs a cap. We need to deal with the immigrants in a way along the lines of what you said, but also with greatly reduced numbers.

[Igirisu Jin]

Bexie, I agree with many of your points and ways to deal with the problems caused by many immigrants. And it seems you agree with me that setting up versions of their own cultures (that have led to the failing of their own countries) in our country, is not what we want at all. It is not every immigrant that is the problem, and it has nothing to do with skin colour at all, but has everything to do with imported behaviours from their background cultures. If immigration was managed properly, partly using the methods you brought up, then these problems would be dealt with.

I can't agree with your first point though. Open boarders would not help anything at all. By having open boarders we couldn't possibly hope to control immigration, and our security would be compromissed. Immigration needs tight controls and zero tollerance for those not respecting the opertunity to live here.

As well as the behaviour of many immigrants causing us major problems, we also have huge problems caused by over population. We are not able to cope with the population explosion we are faced with. People within the country breeding when they shouldn't is bad enough, but importing more is insane. We simply don't have the room for it. Our infrastructure can barely cope. One immigrant comes here and within a short space of time, their whole family has joined them, then they breed at a rate far greater than our own. Immigration needs a cap. We need to deal with the immigrants in a way along the lines of what you said, but also with greatly reduced numbers.