This is what ministers SHOULD resign for...

Last week - on his new blog - Peter Hitchens wrote the following:

"Oh, ah, yes, Tessa Jowell. Groan. I want to be interested, but it's an effort. I find these scandals very hard going and think they are a substitute for proper politics. The government should fall because it steals so much of our money and spends it so badly; because it is selling our national independence; because it is a grotesque threat to our liberties and our constitution; because it is destroying what is left of our education system; because it is dismantling our armed forces. Removing the occasional minister does little good. In fact it may even be a safety valve for public wrath."

I thought of Peter's words when I woke up to this morning's news reports about the fact that there is a backlog of up to 283,500 failed asylum seekers waiting to be 'removed' from Britain.  At the current rate of removals it could take up to eighteen years for the backlog to be processed - even if no more asylum seekers had their claims turned down.  In a classic proof that this Labour's government's bureaucracy is bloated and out-of-control, it has been revealed that the responsible Immigration and Nationality Directorate employ almost as many people administering the Directorate (as personnel, finance and pensions etc functionaries) as it employs dealing with frontline asylum seekers.

Damian Green, Tory immigration spokesman, called the report from the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee a "shocking indictment" of Britain's asylum system.   Edward Leigh MP, PAC chairman, warned that "the integrity of the UK's asylum application process is at stake."

Home Office minister Tom McNulty offered some weasel words to BBC Online:

"Returning failed asylum seekers is a difficult and complex task.  But we have taken some very important steps forward in recent weeks, by significantly increasing the number of removals, and now believe we have reached the point where they are exceeding the number of unfounded applications."   

This level of inefficiency - with all of its implications for the tax burden and homeland security - is the very sort of issue that government ministers should resign for.  It is also the sort of issue that David Cameron should raise at PMQs tomorrow.  It is 100% right that David Cameron quizzes the Prime Minister about climate change and global poverty over the despatch box but he must also voice popular concerns about these 'core' issues.

Comments

[EU Serf]

Unfortunately unless personal gain or sex is involved, nobody ever resigns.

[Richard]

Why do I get the feeling an amnesty will be granted? Ignoring public opinion on an issue such as sensitive as immigration is a big mistake. In the same way that we wouldn't want people coming into our houses without our permission, we have a right to protect our borders in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Editor - yes yes yes. This is a common theme that has been discussed many times on this website. Talking about the environment and coming up with policies in this area DOES NOT preclude also talking about crime, law and order, drugs, immigration and so on. YOU CAN do both and you must do both.

These figures are pretty damning the Government are doing nothing that leads me to believe they can solve this problem.

[johnC]

But we're Cameron Conservatives now. we don't do asylum or immigration. That was the old nasty party.

[a-tracy]

This 'Jowell/Mills' affair is just what people mean when they say "they're all the same" preach to the workers about paying your taxes and being good citizens, then set up side deals, offshore tax havens, free holidays and other junkets for themselves. As Peter Hitchens said it's hard to get interested in it as there seems so little the public can do about it.

[malcolm]

It will be interesting to see how Cameron,DD and Green perform over this issue in the coming weeks.This is a big test chaps ,don't flunk it!

[Mark Fulford]

There are two strands to the immigration argument: 1) whether our laws are right 2) whether they’re being enforced. Provided we maintain daylight between the two, the second strand should never be off limits. It’s absolutely right that the opposition should hold the government to account and I wish we’d done more of it over Iraq. On a similar note, did the “imminent arrests” over the cartoon protests actually happen, does "imminent" mean more than a week, or was it just something to placate the media?

[kingbongo]

This situation is clearly the result of poor management which is the responsibility of the minister. I thought DD did a good job on Today this morning and if DC needs to approach it from a different angle then he can argue about the fairness of the system.

It is simply not right to have a survival of the fittest approach to asylum - the policy at the election was fine; it was allowing ourselves to be wrongly labelled by not framing the case in the right language that was wrong. I think DD can get some mileage out of this on an efficiency and fairness basis and holding ministers to account for their clear ineptitude

[Editor]

Yes, kingbongo, DD did do a good job on Today. I posted this before I heard him on the 8.10 slot.

[Sean Fear]

I would expect there to be an amnesty. After all, it would produce 283,500 Labour voters.

[James Maskell]

Finally got back on this site...for some reason I couldnt get on this site.

One thing which has been left to pass without substantial scrutiny is the "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill". Forget all the other big stories around at the moment, this bill is about the government changing laws completely bypassing parliament of its own accord. This is enormous. Where is the Conservatve Party...it shoulld be shouting from the rooftops about this disgraceful Bill.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Kingbongo - 'Its simply not right to have a survival of the fittest approach to asylum'. It depends what is meant by 'fittest' in that context, but something that bugs me no end, is that quite often one gets news items regarding asylum seekers who have become contributing members of their community to the extent that there is a large petition organised to ask the relevant department to grant them asylum just because they HAVE proved their worth to the community, and shown that they are really interested in becoming British citizens.

One is left with the impression that these people are picked on by a government obsessed with statistics, just because they are easy targets - settled, and therefore requiring little expense to locate and shift! The people of which there are many more that should be sent back to where they come from are going to cost more to locate and expel, so there is less enthusiasm to deal with their cases!

[Patsy Sergeant]

James - I seem to have a permanent 'this page is not available' at the moment when trying to enter this site, as I am bloody-minded, I continue to press the relevant title on my favorites list, until the unwanted negative page gives up!

I wonder why neither opposition parties seem to be taking much interest in this Bill (the Legislative and Reform Bill), one might almost suspect that individual MP's think that it won't really affect them, or maybe they don't have the time to work out, the many aspects of life that this bill could have an effect on; various articles in the newspapers have tried to arouse interest.

[Mark Fulford]

Patsy - your explanations missed what may well be the truth: that individual MP's are so bamboozled by the bill that they can't comprehend its power. Who would trust ministers such as Tom McNulty with the powers that this bill provides?

[Richard]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4793202.stm

"Asked whether this debate should include talking to the public about how to deal with illegal immigrants, he was more circumspect."

Hmmm, I wonder why! The arrogance of these people never ceases.

[Andrew]

I imagine that the new Tory policy on asylum and immigration will be the same as New Labour's: Don't ask, don't tell. With relatively good reason, too. Immigration might be a concern of lots of middle-class, middle-income people in Tory shires who live in predominantly white areas, but they're going to vote for us anyway. The only people whose votes really swing on this issue are the chattering metropolitan types who really, vehemently despised Howard's approach. The logical policy, from a cynical perspective, is a continuance of Labour's hard talking soft action. And Cameron's Conservatives are all about cynical vote-winning. Watch this space.

[Sean Fear]

"Don't ask, don't tell. With relatively good reason, too. Immigration might be a concern of lots of middle-class, middle-income people in Tory shires who live in predominantly white areas, but they're going to vote for us anyway"

Immigration concerns working class people to, and it concerns people in almost every type of seat. We no longer live in a world where people will "vote for us anyway" - that went out with Lady Docker.

[Andrew]

Immigration concerns working class people to, and it concerns people in almost every type of seat.

Not enough to swing their vote it doesn't.

I suspect I agree with you on immigration policy. I'm just spelling out the way the Tory party is likely to go on the issue.

[Rob G]

James Maskell, at 10:33 commented One thing which has been left to pass without substantial scrutiny is the "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill". Forget all the other big stories around at the moment, this bill is about the government changing laws completely bypassing parliament of its own accord. This is enormous. Where is the Conservatve Party...it shoulld be shouting from the rooftops about this disgraceful Bill.
I appreciate that this is slightly off topic but this does seem to be the most outrageous and unconstitutional thing that this apalling government is doing at the moment. The Party website has a speech from Oliver Heald which indicates that we have put down some amendments to the Bill. But where is the public condmenation? Looks like we're going to need the House of Lords to come to the rescue yet again!

[James Maskell]

I didnt plan for it to be off topic. Its an example of something ministers should resign for...even coming up with the suggestion that sidelining Parliament can be justified, especially with reference to its scrutiny and legislative roles.

[Dominic Llewellyn]

The reality of the system is that there should be more asylum seekers accepted. The government are not sending many of this 283,500 back because for many of them it is too dangerous. However, the government do not have enough political capital to be able to say this, instead even more worryingly, they refuse many applications and don't send the asylum seekers home, forcing many into poverty and destitution, without benefits. Many women are forced into prostitution and men are forced into other criminal activity, creating a black economy purely to survive.

[True Blue]

The idea that these people are a tax burden is laughable.

For capitalism to work efficiently, we need free movement of capital and free movement of labour. Capital seems to flow freely, perhaps a little too freely. For this reason the economy desperately need immigration. Look at the most unpleasant jobs, and who is doing them - it's always the latest batch of immigrants. As time goes on, most immigrant comminuties move up social classes to fill more presitgious occupations, and become more accepted.

Stopping people getting in, and kicking them out when they are here is incredibly difficult and expensive. Perhaps if we had an ID card which had to be produced on demand...

However, because a large proportion of people in this country don't like immigration, we have to pretend that we are really fighting it. As immigrants are net contributors to the economy, it doesn't make economic sense to kick them out, but it makes political sense to pretend you want to. Why they don't like immigration is almost certainly a combination of fear, xenophobia, nimbyism, a false patriotism based on a vision of a non-existent golden age and a lack of understanding of basic economics.

The cost of kicking these people out is ridiculously high. The minister is in an untenable position, but it's their stupid policy, and he should resign.

[Andrew]

Many women are forced into prostitution and men are forced into other criminal activity, creating a black economy purely to survive.

Yes, maybe in the editorial pages of the Daily Mail. Here in the real world, however, they work cash-in-hand for less than minimum wage, doing the jobs that we won't do.

What we need is strong border controls, and to grant an amnesty to anyone currently working illegally in the country. Anything else is doomed to failure. True Blue is absolutely correct.

[Ted]

True Blue makes a good point - but line of attack surely isn't against the immigrants but against the incompetence.

There are two separate sides to immigration - illegal and legal. I agree we need legal immigration either on a temporary basis - work permits - or with a view to resident & maybe citizenship status. As long as rules are clear, and enforcement just then its for the Government & Paliament to decide the levels required and acceptable.

Illegal immigration - and I include failed asylum seekers in this - shows the degree to which our border & employment controls are failing. We have a good source of cheap labour in the entrant countries of the EU and if we find in future we need low status jobs filled we can face up to that problem (could be that wages rise due to shortage of staff so we find resident people are available).

[Dominic Llewellyn]

Rest assured Andrew I believe the Daily Mail has a lot to answer for in the way it has portrayed asylum seekers. Many you are right, are doing cash in hand jobs, there are a considerable number however who are forced elsewhere. Whilst either way a black economy is created, more importantly however are the livelihoods which these destitute people live.

[Sean Fear]

"Why they don't like immigration is almost certainly a combination of fear, xenophobia, nimbyism, a false patriotism based on a vision of a non-existent golden age and a lack of understanding of basic economics."

There's rather more to it than that I think. Foreign workers may be great; but once they acquire indefinite leave to remain, the acquire the right to social security, and the right to bring in relatives who may not have the skills that we are looking for.

To take one example, back in the sixties and seventies, textile manufacturers in the North thought their industry would be saved by bringing in low wage labour from the Indian sub-continent. Well, the textile industry still went down the tubes, and we ended up with a large population stuck at the bottom of our society, and in many cases, pretty embittered towards our society. Was that really wise?

[Sean Fear]

How many would you like us to admit, Dominic?

[malcolm]

I would agree with you Ted.One of the countries that seems to me to have developed a good system is Switzerland.They issue a huge number of temporary work permits each year and migrant workers are offered the full protection of employment law available to Swiss nationals.However should work not be available those who have no valid work permits are deported back to their country of origin quckly and efficiently.This system seems to be accepted by all sections of society as equitable and fair.

[Andrew]

Dominic: Many you are right, are doing cash in hand jobs, there are a considerable number however who are forced elsewhere.

How do you know?! The government don't even know how many failed asylum seekers are in the country, and yet you claim to know what they're doing for a living? With those sorts of psychic powers, you should get a job in the Office for National Statistics. They could save a lot of money by employing someone of your 'skills'.

[Ted]

Andrew

I know a few people in business who depend on seasonal/low skilled staff - usually obtained by agencies (gangmasters) so its between the firm & the labour provider. A number of these have turned out to be illegals - people now going for Eastern Europeans but still not uncommon for agencies to provide a group of asian or african people of uncertain legality.

[Dominic Llewellyn]

Andrew, you are right, we don't have statistics, but we do have the benefit of people with real life experience who work with people such as these who report regularly on the issues.

[Andrew]

Ted: I'm not disputing that. I said above that I guessed that most asylum seekers would be working in cash-in-hand sub-minimum wage jobs that no-one else wants to do. Yes, it's illegal, but it isn't engaging in crime in the way Dominic is alluding to.

Dominic: we don't have statistics, but we do have the benefit of people with real life experience who work with people such as these who report regularly on the issues.

Right. Anecdotes. Care to provide a link to a credible source?

[Bruce]

A need to import immigrant workers when unemployment in, say, Glasgow, is at record levels? Sadly, this paradox is explainable--the welfare state pays its own people not to work, then imports foreigners to do the work. The welfare state then enjoys the vote of both the unemployed and the immigrant.

[True Blue]

"A need to import immigrant workers when unemployment in, say, Glasgow, is at record levels? Sadly, this paradox is explainable--the welfare state pays its own people not to work, then imports foreigners to do the work. The welfare state then enjoys the vote of both the unemployed and the immigrant."

Here is an example of the "don't understand basic economics" anti-immigration camp. In the nation _as a whole_ (this is important) there are not a fixed number of a jobs with immigrants and non-immigrants competing for them. The economy doesn't work like that. Immigrants, who tend to be motivated - they've left their own countries to find work - set up businesses, provide affordable labour and also professional skills in short supply in the UK.

The UK unemployed are not very mobile. They don't particularly want to move down South to work as nannies or cleaners. Perhaps we should make them work? Immigration provides a flexible labour pool.

Much of the work done by immigrants is in fact skilled labour. Immigrants have a higher proportion of graduates that the UK-born population. Nurses, doctors and similar professionals are staffed by immigrants. They certainly aren't here to have a cushy time at the expense of the state, nor do they get one.

[malcolm]

Whilst I'm happy to bow to your knowledge of economics true blue and am ready to acknowledge that infinite sources of cheap labour will benefit some businesses you do ignore the social costs involved.These costs are very significant I would suggest that it is very debatable as to whether the price is worth paying.

[James Hellyer]

Perhaps we should make them work?

Perhaps we should.

[Richard]

"Don't ask, don't tell. With relatively good reason, too. Immigration might be a concern of lots of middle-class, middle-income people in Tory shires who live in predominantly white areas, but they're going to vote for us anyway"

But what will happen when the immigrants get an amnesty and start voting Labour? If the Tories follow the strategy you predict it will be irresponsibly short sighted.

"Why they don't like immigration is almost certainly a combination of fear, xenophobia, nimbyism, a false patriotism based on a vision of a non-existent golden age and a lack of understanding of basic economics."

What doesn't help is asylum seekers who commit crimes which then inevitably make it into the newspapers. It's all very well to accuse newspapers of blowing it out of proportion but it can't be doubted that a significant number of illegals are responsible and involved in crime. It might be argued that this is a small price to pay for the benefits of immigration but that suggestion won't go down well with the electorate.

Anyway, I stick to my original principle. Inhabitants of houses say who can and cannot come in. Inhabitants of this country should also be allowed to say who can and cannot come in. You may not like their reasons for saying no but to ignore them is to invite trouble i.e the BNP.

Like it or not, I expect there are many people who are nervous about the idea of non-whites becoming an increasingly large proportion of the population, especially if they hold cultural and political views radically different to the "host community". The radically differing attitudes between Muslims and non-Muslims to the war in Afghanistan is just one worrying example of this difference. 80% of non-Muslims favoured it, 80% of Muslims opposed it (it was reported on the front page of the Telegraph back in 2001 I believe). We have already seen racial tensions flaring up in recent years. There is a genuine risk that further mass immigration will exacerbate it. Integration is very hard to achieve when people of different cultures enter your country on a massive scale. We have yet to properly integrate hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their descendants who came here decades ago.

[Richard]

"Don't ask, don't tell. With relatively good reason, too. Immigration might be a concern of lots of middle-class, middle-income people in Tory shires who live in predominantly white areas, but they're going to vote for us anyway"

But what will happen when the immigrants get an amnesty and start voting Labour? If the Tories follow the strategy you predict it will be irresponsibly short sighted.

"Why they don't like immigration is almost certainly a combination of fear, xenophobia, nimbyism, a false patriotism based on a vision of a non-existent golden age and a lack of understanding of basic economics."

What doesn't help is asylum seekers who commit crimes which then inevitably make it into the newspapers. It's all very well to accuse newspapers of blowing it out of proportion but it can't be doubted that a significant number of illegals are responsible and involved in crime. It might be argued that this is a small price to pay for the benefits of immigration but that suggestion won't go down well with the electorate.

Anyway, I stick to my original principle. Inhabitants of houses say who can and cannot come in. Inhabitants of this country should also be allowed to say who can and cannot come in. You may not like their reasons for saying no but to ignore them is to invite trouble i.e the BNP.

Like it or not, I expect there are many people who are nervous about the idea of non-whites becoming an increasingly large proportion of the population, especially if they hold cultural and political views radically different to the "host community". The radically differing attitudes between Muslims and non-Muslims to the war in Afghanistan is just one worrying example of this difference. 80% of non-Muslims favoured it, 80% of Muslims opposed it (it was reported on the front page of the Telegraph back in 2001 I believe). We have already seen racial tensions flaring up in recent years. There is a genuine risk that further mass immigration will exacerbate it. Integration is very hard to achieve when people of different cultures enter your country on a massive scale. We have yet to properly integrate hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their descendants who came here decades ago.

[Mark Fulford]

What doesn't help is asylum seekers who commit crimes which then inevitably make it into the newspapers. It's all very well to accuse newspapers of blowing it out of proportion but it can't be doubted that a significant number of illegals are responsible and involved in crime.

"A report by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) found no evidence of a higher rate of crime among refugees and asylum seekers. In fact, having escaped from danger in their home countries, asylum seekers are more likely to be the victims of crime in the UK (ACPO 2001)."

[Observer]

Fallacy 1: Immigrants do the jobs that British people won't do.

So there aren't any toilet cleaners or waiters in Cornwall? Please. British people are willing to do any manner of low-skill jobs, provided they're paid a wage that's sufficient to motivate them. Immigrant workers may not 'steal' any jobs, but they do price our own people out of the lower-end of the job market, who then end up on the welfare scrap heap. What a shame they aren't 'economically literate', then they'd realise that they should be grateful for the invisible hand of the market squeezing their necks.

Fallacy 2: Most immigrants come here to work.

Actually, only 1 in 5 do so. Most come here through the family reunification scheme, and as such are not net tax payers.

Fallacy 3: Most immigrants are net tax payers.

Of the immigrants who do come here to work, many end up in low-skill jobs that contribute little in terms of tax. Combined with the fact that the poorer the country an immigrant comes from, the far greater the likelihood that they will stay here permanently (as opposed to the 'old' EU , with which we have balanced migration), this means that over the course of their stay in the UK they will consume more in public services than they contribute in tax.

Taken as a whole immigrants do make an annual net contribution to the exchequer of some 4 bn (a relatively small sum anyway) but this statistic is skewed by the contributions of a small number of high earners. What the Conservative Party really needs to do is to work out what type and proportion of immigrants make a net contribution to the economy and then structure the immigration system to keep out all the rest. (Unfortunately, I admit this is a massive stumbling block. You can't stop the family reunification stream, as that'd involve telling people they couldn't marry a foreign spouse! However, at least some tighter restrictions could be introduced to block bogus marriages.)

We really need to investigate the economic benefits of immigration, and to debunk the myths being peddled about. Happily, the canard about how immigration will pay for our pensions is no longer taken seriously - as Michael Howard himself noted at election time.

Then we need to work out if the economic benefits of immigration outweigh the negative consequences in terms of overcrowding and social tensions.

Throughout this process, it'd be instructive to remember that there are just as many reactionaries (and more vested interests) on the 'pro' side of the immigration debate as there are on the 'anti' side.

[Sean Fear]

There's very little to add to that Observer, save that we could follow the Danish example and require foreign spouses to be 24+ at marriage, before they can settle here.

Overall, I regard family reunion as being a daft basis on which to base immigration policy.

[Richard]

"British people are willing to do any manner of low-skill jobs, provided they're paid a wage that's sufficient to motivate them. Immigrant workers may not 'steal' any jobs, but they do price our own people out of the lower-end of the job market, who then end up on the welfare scrap heap"

Maybe if the welfare scrap heap wasn't there then they would do the low-skill jobs instead of leaving it to the immigrants.

[Andrew]

But what will happen when the immigrants get an amnesty and start voting Labour? If the Tories follow the strategy you predict it will be irresponsibly short sighted.

So what if they do? It will predominantly effect a few London boroughs and a couple of other places that are already ultra safe Labour seats.

it can't be doubted that a significant number of illegals are responsible and involved in crime.

I'm amazed that anyone can say this with a straight face. Just because the Mail and the Express can dig up cases where an asylum seeker has been involved in crime, it doesn't naturally follow that 'a significant number of illegals are responsible and involved in crime'. As Mark said above, the evidence states the opposite. It is fairly petty prejudice to state otherwise.

So there aren't any toilet cleaners or waiters in Cornwall? Please. British people are willing to do any manner of low-skill jobs, provided they're paid a wage that's sufficient to motivate them.

And that's the catch, isn't it? We aren't prepared to pay British people enough to motivate them to do low-skill jobs. It makes those jobs essentially unviable.

What a shame they aren't 'economically literate', then they'd realise that they should be grateful for the invisible hand of the market squeezing their necks.

Don't be melodramatic. You can't stop immigration, as the Chinese cockle-pickers case showed. People will still come here to do low paid, crappy work, because the alternatives in their countries of origin are frankly worse. British workers can't compete with that.

Fallacy 2: Most immigrants come here to work.

I'm not sure that anyone has stated that. All I've said on the subject is that my guess is that most illegal immigrants/failed asylum seekers are working low-skilled jobs rather than indulging in petty and not-so-petty crime to get by.

What the Conservative Party really needs to do is to work out what type and proportion of immigrants make a net contribution to the economy and then structure the immigration system to keep out all the rest.

This is just totally naive. You won't get people to vote for that, because it is far too easy to paint as nasty racism, whatever the actual truth of the matter may be. Immigration only bothers people on a day-to-day basis in a very small number of seats where the effects, particularly on the old working class, are very noticeable. Better to keep quiet about it, and then enact changes when in power.

And this is priceless:

Maybe if the welfare scrap heap wasn't there then they would do the low-skill jobs instead of leaving it to the immigrants.

The fantasy land politics of abolishing the welfare state. Honestly, I'm glad some of you people aren't political strategists for the party. Although judging by the 2005 campaign, you probably were...

[Jonathan Sheppard]

FYI - something mentioned earleir on in this thread: "Five men have been arrested over their alleged role in protests against cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad, Scotland Yard said" See BBC News Online:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4808192.stm

[True Blue]

I have this great set of proposals which will sweep us into Downing Street based on Observer and Richard's comments.

1. Abolish the minimum wage and remove social security for anyone who refuses to take any job offered.

2. Tag everyone foreign coming into the country, unless they have a high net worth. A tiny microchip (like the dog scheme) would be unobtrusive and enable us to track anyone foreign.

3. Listen to the people who "think there are too many non-white faces already", have a skin-colour based quota, and make sure that they can pass a suitable "Blightly-compatibility" test before we let them in. White people with real, or fake tan can get an expemption, or maybe a quarantine period until they go "white" again.

4. Lock our borders up like steel, and use Canvey island as a great big internment camp to keep people in until their bogus asylum claim is rejected. If they have documented proof of torture (video footage, eye witnesses, etc) then let them stay subject to the other conditions.

5. Refuse benefits to anyone foreign. Arrest all illegal immigrants (let's see, that's 250,000 people, 250,000 arrests, 250,000 flights back to the country of origin - should be easy)

6. Name _all_ London stations and squares after victories over the French.

(You know, I think there might be something in number 6)

[Observer]

Hi Andrew, just to respond to some of your points:

‘You can't stop immigration, as the Chinese cockle-pickers case showed. People will still come here to do low paid, crappy work, because the alternatives in their countries of origin are frankly worse. British workers can't compete with that.’

The experience of other countries around the world shows us that we can stop mass immigration, legal and illegal – provided there is the political will to do so. Look at countries such as Japan and South Korea. Both have highly developed economies (which owe nothing to mass immigration) and a homogenous population. There are millions of poorer neighbours in the region, in countries such as the Phillipines and Indonesia, who would love to go and work in these countries, but the Japanese and Koreans choose to not let them in. Closer to home, Denmark has had great success in reducing immigration.

From an article in ‘The American Conservative’:

“The new government introduced legislation that made it harder for immigrants to enter Denmark and to acquire Danish nationality. Copenhagen began to repatriate illegal immigrants and encouraged rejected asylum seekers to leave. It implemented stricter rules to determine who should receive residence permits. It slashed social benefit payments to newcomers, allowing them only a box of bare necessities. As a result, the number of asylum seekers in Denmark dropped from 12,100 in 2000 to 3,222 in 2004. The number of people recognized as refugees decreased from 5,159 in 2000 to 1,607 in 2004. Residence permits for family reunification dropped from 10,021 in 2000 to 4,791 in 2003. The number of people acquiring Danish nationality fell from 18,811 in 2000 to 6,583 in 2003, with Asians down from 7,844 to 1,436 and Africans from 2,371 to 312.”

Denmark’s revival aside, the problem in Western democracies is that any attempt to restrict immigration is stifled by the ‘racism’ taboo. This taboo is ruthlessly invoked against anyone who expresses concerns about our out-of-control immigration system, regardless of how moderate those concerns actually are. The consequences are public vilification, where possible, professional ruin, and at the extreme end, prosecution. As if being concerned about the negative fiscal contribution of low-skilled immigrants, the Darwinian wage competition faced by British low-skilled workers, overcrowding in our cities, destruction of the greenbelt, the strain on public services and the transport infrastructure, and the state of race relations – all good liberal anxieties - were a sign of white supremacism!

‘This is just totally naive. You won't get people to vote for that, because it is far too easy to paint as nasty racism, whatever the actual truth of the matter may be.’

The bloody-minded refusal of the left to acknowledge that one can have principled objections to mass immigration suggests to me that they are morally bankrupt on this issue (as they are on many other issues). While I appreciate your anxiety about how the ‘liberal’ press will misrepresent Conservative proposals to restrict immigration, to run away from the fight is simply a cowardly response. The only proper response to a bully who constantly and unfairly attacks you is to stand up to them. I would suggest the Conservatives do this by stressing the reasons in my last paragraph. We must reframe immigration restriction as a truly progressive policy, while simultaneously pointing out the vested interests of the pro-immigration lobby (business wants cheap labour without paying for the social costs or employee’s rights; immigration lawyers want more clients; left-wing intellectuals want to bask in the Ready-Brek glow of moral superiority; and, above all, the Labour party wants more voters).

Finally, I shouldn’t need to point out the vast public support for immigration reform. In one poll over 80% of people said immigration was out of control, including 52 % of ethnic minorities. The key is how such a policy is presented to the public – they need to be convinced that they are doing the right thing in following their instincts.

‘True Blue’ – your comments are not sufficiently serious for me to respond to. Except, when you scoff at the notion of cultural compatibility:

‘Listen to the people who "think there are too many non-white faces already", have a skin-colour based quota, and make sure that they can pass a suitable "Blightly-compatibility" test before we let them in.’

Clearly the race riots in the Midlands several years ago (and last year), similar riots in France and Denmark, the Cartoon jihad and the London bombings all passed you by. Try to watch the news a little more. Unless, of course, you are perfectly aware of these events, but because you personally are insulated from such occurrences, you can afford to serenely ignore them, and bask in the glow of moral superiority which I mentioned.

[Sean Fear]

What is it about so many British Conservatives that makes them so afraid of criticism from left-wingers?

[Observer]

Sean - it's because a direct hit from a rolled-up copy of the Guardian hurts like hell. :)

We really need to turn round and put up a fight against the left. There's a groundswell of opposition to political correctness in many Western countries, but the majority is too disorganised and intimidated to translate their feelings into action. It seems to me that this is one of the main goals of conservatism (whether conducted inside or outside of any political party) - to make a stand for majority rights.

[James Maskell]

The Guardian newspaper is smaller. If you want a paper with both the weight and the size to throw at someone, you want to get the Sunday Times!

[Sean Fear]

There's too much of it to roll up though.

[Observer]

What about the Guardian online? A hit from a laptop's gotta hurt.

[James Maskell]

Roll it up and you decrease the chances of getting a direct hit. The Telegraph is the better paper for rolling but it doesnt have the weight so you cant get the long distance required for hitting someone with the ability to make a quick getaway. The heavier the paper, the closer you have to be and the less chance youll have of getting away.

If you ge the Sunday Times you can always split the paper up and have two rolled up missiles.

[Richard]

"I'm amazed that anyone can say this with a straight face. Just because the Mail and the Express can dig up cases where an asylum seeker has been involved in crime, it doesn't naturally follow that 'a significant number of illegals are responsible and involved in crime'.

My apologies, I was getting confused with crime brought about by legal immigration:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crimedebate/story/0,12079,963346,00.html

However, this doesn't change the fact that some asylum seekers do commit crime and it would be helpful if we deported such people rather than set them loose. If there is no evidence of a past criminal record in their original countries then I appreciate this isn't always possible. I remember a few years ago in Eastbourne where a girl was raped by a Kosovan "refugee" and I thought "why the heck was he allowed here?!". That is the sort of problem that annoys people and contributes to anti-immigration sentiment, no matter how irrational you may feel it to be.

"The fantasy land politics of abolishing the welfare state. Honestly, I'm glad some of you people aren't political strategists for the party. Although judging by the 2005 campaign, you probably were..."

I am well aware that abolishing the welfare system is not feasible at the moment. My point was that if immigrants are prepared to work for lower wages than British workers then perhaps we should stop pampering British workers. Instead of working, they get money extracted from taxes we pay.

"Abolish the minimum wage and remove social security for anyone who refuses to take any job offered."

While I can see the former being unpopular I expect there might be a lot of sympathy with the latter. The point is, why should immigrants have to do the "dirty work" while the "natives" sit around claiming benefits which are worth more!

[True Blue]

"Clearly the race riots in the Midlands several years ago (and last year), similar riots in France and Denmark, the Cartoon jihad and the London bombings all passed you by. Try to watch the news a little more. Unless, of course, you are perfectly aware of these events, but because you personally are insulated from such occurrences, you can afford to serenely ignore them, and bask in the glow of moral superiority which I mentioned."

You obviously don't appreciate satire. What I suggested is an exaggeration of the logical consequence of your suggestions.

You are correct though, here in Brixton, I really am insulated from these matters. I assume you too live in the inner cities. Surely you don't live out in the sticks where ethnic minorities are rarely seen, but you've got a bee in your bonnet about it anyway?

The French example shows what happens if you don't attempt to integrate newcomers, and have large, unpleasant extreme right-wing parties who stir up racial hatred.

When I read your posts, I see the rotten corpse of Enoch Powell crawling out of the grave and mumbling "rivers of blood, rivers of blood." Now, if you'd like to take yourself beyond satire, why not say "Enoch Powell knew what he was talking about"?

[Mark Fulford]

Observer, I can tell that you don't like the current arrangements, but I'm not sure that I understand what policies you want for:

1. existing legal refugees and immigrants;
2. failed asylum seekers;
3. future refugees and immigrants.

Could you offer a summary?

[Andrew]

Observer: Finally, I shouldn’t need to point out the vast public support for immigration reform. In one poll over 80% of people said immigration was out of control, including 52 % of ethnic minorities.

Yes, the public support it, but the evidence shows that they won't vote for it. It is an odd situation, but that is where we are.

We really need to turn round and put up a fight against the left.

Couldn't agree more, and I've been arguing for this sort of approach for years. The problem is that you aren't going to get it from Cameron's Conservatives.

Sean: What is it about so many British Conservatives that makes them so afraid of criticism from left-wingers?

It isn't criticism that we/they are afraid of. But where the public's main source of news information is an institutionally biased left-wing liberal state broadcaster, any attempt to laugh off such criticism is doomed to failure.

People may support the Conservative (former?) line on immigration, but they don't vote for it. It is that simple. And where immigration does change people's votes, it is in marginal middle-class seats where a tough line on immigration is perceived as thinly veiled racism. This works against us.

[Sean Fear]

I think your views are somewhat Panglossian True Blue.

[Sean Fear]

"The French example shows what happens if you don't attempt to integrate newcomers"

Integration implies, surely, that you control numbers.

[Sean Fear]

"People may support the Conservative (former?) line on immigration, but they don't vote for it. It is that simple. And where immigration does change people's votes, it is in marginal middle-class seats where a tough line on immigration is perceived as thinly veiled racism"

How do you know that? Quite large numbers of middle class voters in London and the Home Counties switched to the Conservatives at the last election.

[True Blue]

"I think your views are somewhat Panglossian True Blue"

Do you mean I am over-optimistic, glib, or just misguided?

[Sean Fear]

Over-optimistic.

[Observer]

True Blue:

'You are correct though, here in Brixton, I really am insulated from these matters. I assume you too live in the inner cities. Surely you don't live out in the sticks where ethnic minorities are rarely seen, but you've got a bee in your bonnet about it anyway?'

Again, you fail to respond to any of the serious (and liberal) points I made about the harmful effects of uncontrolled immigration (which also impact upon the residents of Brixton), instead resorting to ad hominem assumptions. Of course, only ignorant country bumpkins are bothered about immigration. Cue 'Feuding Banjos', the theme music from 'Deliverance'. Twang.

Alhough I hate rising to your bait here, I can tell you that I live in Greater London, and have several immigrants in my immediate family - Maltese, Filipino and Polish. All of whom have a view on immigration that's a lot closer to mine than yours.

'When I read your posts, I see the rotten corpse of Enoch Powell crawling out of the grave and mumbling "rivers of blood, rivers of blood." Now, if you'd like to take yourself beyond satire, why not say "Enoch Powell knew what he was talking about"?'

Thanks for proving my point about your lack of seriousness, intellectual bankruptcy, and sense of moral superiority.

I won't let this thread degenerate into a slanging match, so I'll end my correspondence with you here. Arguments like yours aren't worthy of further comment.

[True Blue]

"Do you mean I am over-optimistic, glib, or just misguided?"

No, I am a pragmatist. The difficulties, costs and consequences of attempting to put very tight controls on immigration massively outway the economic and social benefits of such measures. This is good centre-right policy. The States is the ultimate example of the benefits of immigration.

Present me with strong evidence contradicting this and I'll change my mind. It's really not a matter of principle.

I do find that the people who complain most about immigration are people who are totally unaffected by it, which leads me to question their motives.

[True Blue]

"Thanks for proving my point about your lack of seriousness, intellectual bankruptcy, and sense of moral superiority."

I would have preferred moral bankcruptcy and intellectual superiority, but thanks, anyway.

Please indulge me once more.

Do you, or do you not agree with Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech?

I promise not to respond again.

[malcolm]

'The States is the ultimate example of the benefits of Immigration'.The US is a much bigger country more easily able toassimilate large numbers of immigrants and secondly whilst it has benefited economically you once again ignore the huge social problem that have occured.

[Observer]

Mark Fulford,

I don't claim to have the detailed answers about how to reform the immigration and asylum system, but here's a rough idea:

1. Current (accepted) refugees and immigrants should be allowed to stay.

2. Failed asylum seekers should be deported - but I recognise this is a huge practical problem, as the figure's estimated to be between 500 and 750 thousand.

3. Future refugees. I'd support the Conservative's election proposal of a cap on asylum numbers. This might sound harsh to some but there's a limit on the numbers we can accept. In mitigation, I'd apply the AND theory to address the underlying causes of forced migration and invest heavily in international development, and review our involvement in the arms trade to developing countries, and do more to promote fair trade.

Many people have qualms about immigration control because they think migration helps the developing world. It's only a sticking plaster. In the long run, as we can only take in a fraction of the people from poor countries, the answer to their probelms is development - not migration.

4. Future immigrants. The general principles I'd follow would be to fill skills gaps through investing in the education of British people, and only invite immigrants who meet the requirments of a points system -and only in the event that we are unable to meet those shortages ourselves. Labour promised education, education, education; in some sectors, all we've had is immigration, immigration, immigration. That's a very lazy way of addressing our problems.

In short, immigration is a big question which needs to subjected to a thorough policy review, based on what benefits this country in the long-term. It has to identify the net economic contributors, and has to focus on the environmental and social costs that come with immigration.

If anyone's particularly interested in reading up on immigration, I'd recommend Anthony Browne's book, 'Do we need mass immigration?'. It's a real tour de force, which won Prospect magazine's think tank publication of the year award.

P.S. An immigration policy review should also ignore people who issue McCarthyite demands that sceptics publically affirm their lack of racism. That strikes me as a good habit.

[Mark Fulford]

I agree with you that immigration needs a policy review - and with both you and True Blue that it needs to be pragmatic and objective. I'm not sure that an objective review would find a cap necessary.

Racists should not have any input into immigration policy, so I disagree with your PS.

[True Blue]

"P.S. An immigration policy review should also ignore people who issue McCarthyite demands that sceptics publically affirm their lack of racism. That strikes me as a good habit."

Thank you for answering. I apologize in advance for my inability not to respond.

Your assumption appears to be that if you agree with Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech you are a racist. I take it then that you disagree with it. It proposed firm limits on immigration and repatriation of existing immigrants. It also said that immigration causes riots.

You want to:

1. Deport 500-750,000 people. Good luck to you with this. This is so ludicrous socially and logistically, I hardly need to go into it.

2. Limit the number of asylum seekers. To do this, we need to remove ourselves from the 1951 UN refugee convention and join an exclusive club which includes North Korea and Cuba.

3. Invest more in education of UK citizens to do UK jobs. Can you say higher taxes?

For everyone's convenience, here is a link to the 2002 article you mentioned. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs23.pdf

It's an interesting article, which I will examine thoroughly. It includes the priceless quote, which is said apparently without irony:
"It makes for perfect newspaper scare stories, some of which I have written myself, but it should not be used to inform policy."

[Sean Fear]

True Blue, would you deny entry to anybody who wished to settle in this country?

[True Blue]

This is what the BNP's press officer had to say about Observer's recommended reading

"When I read Anthony Browne's earlier book "Do we need Mass Immigration?" (Published by Civitas in 2002) I was struck by how so much of it seemed to be cribbed from my writings, broadcasts and newspaper and radio interviews from around 1997 onwards."

and you'll be pleased to hear you can get it from the BNP's online bookshop.

[Sean Fear]

"Limit the number of asylum seekers. To do this, we need to remove ourselves from the 1951 UN refugee convention"

A good idea. No government should make a promise it can't keep - in this case to admit anybody who has a well-founded fear of persecution. In practice of course, Western governments do everything they can to limit the numbers admitted under the Geneva Convention.

[Sean Fear]

"Deport 500-750,000 people"

I think the estimate is more like 200,000. The Dutch are currently deporting 30,000, equivalent to c.130,000 per head of population, in our terms. I have no objection to the idea of deporting people whose claims for asylum have been rejected.

[James Hellyer]

This is what the BNP's press officer had to say about Observer's recommended reading...

Do you believe everything the BNP press officer says, or is it only something you do when you want to poison the wells of debate?

[True Blue]

"True Blue, would you deny entry to anybody who wished to settle in this country."

I can't think of anyone who thinks there shouldn't be limits on immigration. I certainly do think there should be limits.

I've looked at the demographics, and the population including net migration should stabilise around 2020. There is overcrowding in this country, but distribution of population across the UK appears to be a main problem. This issue cannot be addressed with immigration policy.

Asylum is a separate issue - asylum applications are almost exclusively from war-torn areas, and we have a fundamental obligation to honour them. Asylum applications are going down month on month, and I don't see them increasing unless there is another major war, in which case we should do our bit. Most refugees end up in adjacent, relatively poor countries who take on a much larger burden than they should.

Asylum applications should be processed quickly and fairly, allowed an appeal with a reasonable time to collect evidence (about 20% of appeals succeed) quickly processed and then unsuccesful applicants expatriated. This requires an efficient system. Over 75% of asylum applicants are accepted - I think this shows up the "bogus asylum seeker" of Daily Mail fame to be a bugbear.

[malcolm]

Why don't you answer Seans 'question True Blue?

[Sean Fear]

Well, I think he has. But it's certainly not the case that 75% of asylum applications are accepted. Taking together acceptances, appeals and grants of exceptional leave to remain, the average is around one third.

[True Blue]

"Do you believe everything the BNP press officer says, or is it only something you do when you want to poison the wells of debate? "

I was recommended a book. I thought I would look into it. It has a glowing review on the BNP website, is quoted widely by extreme right organisations, and is full of scare-mongering, I would even say racist, language. Whether or not the BNP spokesman's comments are true, it is obvious that the BNP's views are reflected in this document.

It makes me suspicious of the book's provenance, and I thought to share my suspicions with others.

In my opinion, the obsessions of a small group within the party about immigration, which is simply not the problem they think it is, is what stopped middle class swing voters voting Tory.

[True Blue]

"Well, I think he has. But it's certainly not the case that 75% of asylum applications are accepted. Taking together acceptances, appeals and grants of exceptional leave to remain, the average is around one third."

I was taking figures quoted by the BBC for 1998-99. I should have checked with the ONS. Do you have a link to the figures?

[James Hellyer]

It makes me suspicious of the book's provenance

But apparently you can't actually counter anything in it, hence the smear attempts.

[Sean Fear]

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1305.pdf

Unfortunately, it's 92 pages long, but I think does bear out the one third figure, though it will of course fluctuate from year to year.

[True Blue]

"But apparently you can't actually counter anything in it, hence the smear attempts. "

The author is a poster-boy for the extreme right, even though he obviously does not share their more unpleasant views. I consider that important information.

I am not going to write a review of the book for you. Just bear what the extreme right say about it when you take a look at it.

Similarly, if someone suggest reading material which the SWP says is the greatest thing since sliced bread, do let me know.

[Sean Fear]

Tolkien is also much admired by the extreme-right. That does not of itself devalue his books.

[True Blue]

"Unfortunately, it's 92 pages long, but I think does bear out the one third figure, though it will of course fluctuate from year to year."

Thank you - either Auntie got it wrong or things have really tightened up since 1998. I think it's clear from this docuement that the system is sufficiently harsh. 96% of applicants from Iraq rejected on first application! They just have to kick out the failed ones more quickly so we don't get this ridulous problem.

[Sean Fear]

"In my opinion, the obsessions of a small group within the party about immigration, which is simply not the problem they think it is, is what stopped middle class swing voters voting Tory."

I'm not so sure. Some of our very best results in the country were achieved in middle class London and South Eastern seats, some of them (such as Brent North, Harrow East and West, and Hendon) with very large non-white populations.

[True Blue]

"Tolkien is also much admired by the extreme-right. That does not of itself devalue his books"

Plenty of left-wingers like it, too. I don't think you can say that of Anthony Browne's stuff.

You do have a point, though. However, when you are talking about overtly polictical tracts, you are on different terrority to fiction of this nature, which is far more open to interpretation and I would argue does not have a poarticular political agenda.

[True Blue]

"I'm not so sure. Some of our very best results in the country were achieved in middle class London and South Eastern seats, some of them (such as Brent North, Harrow East and West, and Hendon) with very large non-white populations."

I'm afraid I'll have to resort to anecdotal evidence. A middle-of-the-road friend of mine looked at the immigration posters, and said that he sarcastically thanked the Tories for reminding him what they were all about. Strident anti-immigration policies can lose votes, but I don't think they win them.

This might be heresy, but NuLab policy on immigration, whilst appallingly implemented, is not that far off what it should be. I do think we could do a better job of implementing it.

I really am looking forward to Cameron's take on this.

[James Hellyer]

The author is a poster-boy for the extreme right

True Blue, you appear incapable of framing any argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Anthony Browne being liked by people on the "extreme right" (whatever that might mean) does not mean that his thesis is incorrect.

[Observer]

Anthony Browne's book was awarded think tank publication of the year award by Prospect magazine (as I mentioned). This is a liberal magazine. Someone who overlooks facts in this manner has a debating style that a cockroach would be ashamed of.

Sorry to drag a class website like ConservativeHome into the mud, but this is a perfect example of the amoral bullying that goes on over immigration - from those who feel so sure of their own purity that they have no qualms about smearing anyone and anybody who disagrees with them.

(Over and out.)

[John Hustings]

I think True Blue's attacks on Anthony Browne are well out of line. He is a respected journalist for the Times, not some extreme right-wing nut.

"Plenty of left-wingers like it, too. I don't think you can say that of Anthony Browne's stuff."

So being liked by left-wingers is a pre-requistite for being respectable??

And you call yourself "True Blue"??

[Mark Fulford]

To be utterly pedantic - "over and out" is incorrect ;-)

[Sean Fear]

I wouldn't deny that there were people who objected to our policies on immigration True Blue. Buth then I also recall Mary Ann Seighart writing an article in the Times about how she'd been interviewing people in Putney, and they were all disgusted by our immigration policy (apart from one ex-BNP supporter); and then we won Putney easily.

The London middle classes are probably the most socially liberal group in the country, and yet large numbers shifted to the Tories.

[James Hellyer]

The problem with our immigration policies weren't the policies themselves, but rather our over-reliance on them. Even though the policies were supported by the majority of people, they weren't a swing issue for enough people.

It should have been part of a policy mix, but we didn't actually have any mix. Immigration was dwelt on because it was one area where we were different from Labour and the party policy was already popular. The mistake was using it as the main issue, while all but abandoning issues like health, education and the economy.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I think I remember reading that Justine Greening adopted a different approach to campaigning in Putney than the general campaign strategy pursued by the national party.

[Andrew]

The problem with our immigration policies weren't the policies themselves, but rather our over-reliance on them. Even though the policies were supported by the majority of people, they weren't a swing issue for enough people.

Exactly my point. People don't care enough about immigration for it to change their votes. Public services, terrorism and the economy are all massively more important. We over-rely on it at our peril.

[True Blue]

I hate to drag this out, but in summary:

1. I agree that the over-emphasis on immigration policy, and certain people who are obsessed by it, gave out a coded (if unintentional) racist message. "I'm not racist, but..." As James said, it should be a small part of the policy mix. Lots of people get fired up by it one way or another, but I don't think it's a vote changer, except the wrong way.

2. After more research, I discover that my initial suspicions about Anthony Browne are correct. I'll one example and leave it at that - his utterly fallacious article suggesting that immigrants are bringing TB into the country which was not supported by any evidence - quite the contrary, in fact. The BMJ dismissed it as nonsense.

3. If we start listening to people who think there are too many non-white faces already we make the mistake of equating being British with being white. If you think we should stop immigration to "preserve indignous culture" and by that you mean the white population, you'd certainly come into my defintition of a racist.

4. It's ridiculous that I have to make this point, but - some authors are admired across the polictical spectrum, some by just one. The BNP and RCP might both like Noddy, but that doesn't make it an inherently political tract. I think it's fair to say that Anthony Browne's stuff is political, that many of his views border on racism, and that he has the undying admiration of the far right, with whom he has had extensive friendly correspondence.

[True Blue]

Finally, I'd like to apologize if I gave the impression that I think any of you worthy posters are racists. Just because I have no problem living in a very mixed, very crowded community, doesn't mean that other people shouldn't object.

Whilst I think some of the views expressed here are a bit far to the (non-economic) right for me, it doesn't mean that teh proponents aren't supportive of equal rights and tolerance.

[Robin Paris, Old Sussex Stud,Horsham]

The Ghurkas have always been in the frontline and have always taken the heaviest casualties.
Do the right thing else whatever government, you will be rejected. Make this an issue of the first degree else, I will.