« Cameron faces backlash over Scottish policy | Main | PMQs: Cameron presses Blair on Afghanistan »

Comments

If we are smart we will counter-balance opposition to illegal immigrants, benefit spongers or Islamicist fundamentalist immigrants with the need for the proverbial Polish plumber or hard-working, skilled (and preferably entrepreneurial/wealthy) prospective immigrant. We should be as pro the latter as we are anti the former.

Legal immigration is ok.
Illegal immigration is not.

Yesterday the Tory Diary had an item that stated DC was about to back mass new housing, it later dissappeared.......

Migration Watch states that 2/3 or more of new housing demand arises from immigration.

So if immigration is controlled it would make a massive cut in new housing demand.

It would also improve wage rates improving people's lives and attracting back some UK people into the Labour market.

This research shows that there is massive support amongst voters for a party that has a coherent immigration strategy, why not just stick to the one from the last election with it presented by a person with a soft image? Maybe female if DC and DD not right for it?

We should initiate a points system for immigration - other countries do so, with great success. We should be able to control who comes to this country - it's a duty of care owed by Government to the British people. But then, I'm not holding my breath - mustn't upset the BBC and the rest of the liberal establishment, must we? Better to leave difficult matters like immigration undiscussed, otherwise people will think we're the nasty party.

HF: "Yesterday the Tory Diary had an item that stated DC was about to back mass new housing, it later dissappeared......."

It never existed, HF! You must be thinking of another website.

Unless you are thinking of yesterday's non-voter entry which did include a passing reference to housing policy but that's still there.

I don't think there is any problem with numbers of migrants, the problem is when there are people coming into or leaving the country without the knowledge of or approval of the authorities, this raises serious National Security questions and the scope for people adopting assumed identities - there needs to be more money spent on authorities dealing with Migration & Citizenship, perhaps even a cabinet minister with responsibility for such, there needs to be a biometric based National Identity Database and there needs to be far more policing of borders and checking of identity of people inside the UK, the police need special powers for detaining people where they believe them to be using a false identity. In addition the UK should leave the Council of Europe and restore border controls and treat people coming from the rest of Europe the same way as it treats people coming from elsewhere - this would mean Irish Citizens going through the same procedures as everyone coming from the rest of the world - restrictions would have to apply at the border with Eire.

Editor
It did and when I re-read the earlier comments seems to have been a story from March (please put a date at the top of the articles) which appeared briefly under Tory diary yesterday and 2 of us posted about it.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/03/is_david_camero.html

We had this conversation at the end of May. CH posters made their feelings very plain. A couple of months on, do we repeat the thread, or does someone have something new to say without repeating the blindingly obvious?
But why us?? Easy question. We are MUGS.
Why leave their own country? Easy question. The crooks nobble them with false promises.
Why Islam? Easy question. Too many patriarchs peddling a false view of Islam and Jihad in particular, so their adherents think they should try and break in here and have a Jihad. Bad idea. They wont get 72 virgins for it, as Boris J hilariously wrote, its 72 raisons. Dried grapes that is.
True Muslims are peace loving nice people. I have worked among them long enough to know that. It would only be the patriarchs who
want to sell their daighters off into slavery by forced marraige that would get really upset if immigration were looked at anew, and some rational thinking applied and enforced.
DC really has to put his head above the parapet on this one. With a tin hat on it to deflect the brickbats from the touchy feelie lefties who have not the slightest idea of the effect large numbers of IIEGAL immigrants have on a community.
Lets have Green cards. No card, Goodbye. You really did NOT have to come here. What was the matter with the FIRST country you passed when escaping from whatever. Benefits not good enough? France has the same problem out side Paris, the "Banlieue" (suburbs) those teeming great blocks of humanity is making no go areas for the french.
All over the eastern world, the population seems to want to move west.
The whole thing raises more questions with every attempt to answer it.

Like "football supporters", the word "immigrant" has emotional overtones and doesn't distinguish between "foreign criminals", "guest workers", "genuine asylum seekers", "foreign benefit seekers" etc. Only a small minority of "football supporters" are "soccer hooligans", the majority are well behaved.
We need new, non-emotive descriptions to indicate clearly who we are discussing (a bit like the debate on "Scottish MPs" voting on English affairs).
However, we do need to put back in place much stricter controls on who enters the country and then deal with them appropriately.
Those who take up British citizenship must be encouraged to integrate properly into our society and obey our laws where there is a conflict between their religion and our society. "When in Rome..."

Amnestys aren't the answer to anything, anybody who is here who has not been authorised to be here has to be processed and it determined if they should be here or not obviously considering their behaviour while here, whether they have been paying taxes, have children here etc.... and also whether or not they have been excluded previously.

Immigration, is regulary mentioned on the doorsteps when I'm out canvassing.

With regards to the 09:37 post, if we had secure and controlled borders then we wouldn't need ID cards etc, the introduction of which will prove to be a disaster both in terms of the freedom of British citizens and financially, for which nobody will take responsibility when it all goes wrong......badly wrong. The Conservative leadership should pledge to; scrap ID cards and the proposed 2009 passport renewal process, vigorously control our borders and actively target "illegals" and those seeking to commit "identity fraud" and withdraw from international asylum agreements given the system is now so abused and discredited, even if as inevitably will happen, they get accused of being racist and descriminatory.

What we don't want to do is "persecute by bureaucracy" the vast majority of law abiding British citizens.

if we had secure and controlled borders then we wouldn't need ID cards
I didn't mention ID Cards - the important thing is the database and the biometric information is on everybody, retinal patterns, fingerprints, DNA samples.

The answer is both are needed and so are internal checks, this country is far too lax when it comes to Security Policy.

The answer is both are needed
That is both border security and a national ID system, along with internal security and identity checks.

That we need immigration - and that we need it to be controlled should be a no-brainer.

However if we are serious about having a sustainable national identity, a strong society and shared values for Britain we have to have the guts to challenge and reject cultures and moral relativism that undermine it. This is what concerns people on the street as so many, especially in urban areas, see communities that are fragmentated not diverse, walls of hostility not bridges of commonality.

Labour have done much not just to undermine freedom of speech but also the integrity of discourse. Yet we are complicit if we too shy away from tackling what is a sensitive issue - if only because of misunderstandings.

My advice - your first step should be to replace Damian Green by somebody who has the interests of the established population at heart, and who is prepared to listen to their views and propose robust policies which reflect those views.

(By "established population" I mean those of "indigenous" Anglo-Saxon origins, plus those who have arrived here more recently, who have become part of our society and expressed their long-term commitment and allegiance to the country by becoming British citizens, and of course their descendants. I do not mean eg the supposed 15,000 Poles and other eastern Europeans who have pushed up the population of Reading by 10% over the last two years, some of whom may stay permanently, but many of whom will go back home after a few years.)

Well, ID Cards will be got rid of (even if we helped it go through) and we shall have more prisons instead. That cards already been played... I think the Conservatives should spend the money that would be spent on ID Cards on border control and security relating to our borders/ports/airports.

Immigration is good if it brings in new entrepreneurial talent. The best solution is a two track system. Keep and toughen the existing slow system, but supplement it with a fast track that gives quick access to citizenship to anyone who can work their way to prosperity (some defined minimum income or business assets) in five years grace. During that time they get zero welfare, NHS limited to A&E only, and instant deportation for any crime.

Julia,

No, we do not "need" immigration.

That fallacy has been comprehensively debunked, see eg

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/faqs.asp

Every time immigration policy is discussed the meeja come up with the old "dog whistle" chestnut, and attempt to prove that it is a less-important issue that only gets right-wingers like me into a lather.

So, more of these polls please. Of course it's and important issue, and of course the majority of voters consider it so. And it is perfectly bleedin obvious what the outline policy should be:

YES, a bit of immigration is acceptable in social terms, attractive in economic terms, and we will accept refugees as we always have

NO, we won't take any old economic migrant or bogus asylum seeker - we WILL deport them

The corollory of this is that all ports should expect better policing, and all those living the life of a Briton without contributing a penny should not expect amnesty.

By the time the next general election comes round, this will be received wisdom. Conservatives should lead rather than follow this debate. I agree with HF, that the spokesman should be a soft and cheerful type rather than a barking old major.

A "soft and cheerful type", by all means, but somebody who genuinely has the interests of the established population at heart, which Damian Green does not.

Every person who migrates to this country for economic reasons deprives his own country of his energy, ability and help. Thus each person from a poor country actually deprives his own country of just the sort of person needed to pull it out of poverty. By allowing unfettered immigration we are bleeding dry those countries of fit young people, which they need desperately. This will only increase the gulf between rich and poor countries and increase world poverty - condemning poor countries to diminishing fortunes, and no hope of building a future for those left behind.

Thus controlling immigration to the UK is actually a help to the fortunes of poor countries, not the negative act some like to claim. In the big picture it is more selfish and damaging to accept them than to refuse entry. It will make them use their skills to rebuild and revitalise their own nations, for the benefit of all. We would be helping poor countries to stand on their own feet instead of perpetuating the outdated concept of the west giving financial aid and sacks of food. That is needed in the short term, but such places need the means, including human resources, to grow to help thiemselves.

I can only comment with any degree of knowledge on Southampton, which is where I have lived for the last 5 years. In my day to day life I see problems with yob culture, binge drinking, traffic offences, unresponsive police, high council tax, poor schooling, business regulation, and probably a few other things if I really think about it. But what has never, ever featured as a problem is immigrants.

I wonder how many people who complain about immigration can actually cite examples where it has directly caused them a problem. I am sure that there are some cities and wards that have been unfairly overloaded, and that’s something which needs to be urgently addressed, but, for the majority, I suspect that resentment of immigration is uninformed, skewed patriotism.

Regardless of who is right or wrong on this, where is the "fresh challenge" here? The survey is hardly groundbreaking stuff, and the results are not surprising, especially given the leading nature of some of the questions.

Being the only Englishman in my house (everyone else is Polish) I must strongly disagree with Denis Cooper. One regular complaint I hear is that "foreigners are taking our jobs". Well, thats perhaps true, but why should they be blamed if employers look favourably on them? If the English wont look for the jobs that are available, then the only people they have to blame are themselves. Immigration is good for Britain, albeit to a certain level.

Those Englishmen who think their jobs are being taken should actually go looking for those jobs instead of blaming someone else. You have a right to welfare in the case of unemployment, but you also have a responsibility to find a new job as quickly as possible. Claiming rights without showing responsibility is simply lazy.

Donal Blaney - Poland is an EU Member State - technically all 40 million are eligible to live in England. Britain however still takes in lots of people from Sub-Saharan Africa - there are 120 million Nigerians - maybe they all want to live in England.

There are 1.5 billion Chinese and now that cockle-picking in Morecambe is a new career opportunity - maybe 50 million Chinese want to live in Britain.

Is there any natural limit to the population of the United Kingdom ? Could it for instance handle 120 million living here with say London having a population of 20 million ?

Blunkett saw no limit on possibilities, if you do, how will you define them ?

The idea that the UK "needs" immigration is one of the most pernicious fallacies of the age.

We are buyng short-term economic activity - not the same thing as prosperity - at the cost of long-term social cohesion and national identity.

As for an amnesty for illegal immigrants, we have a de facto one already. Everyone - EVERYONE - knows that there are hundreds of thousands of people here illegally. Yet the government does almost nothing to identify and remove them.

However, the Tories must avoid this issue like the plague until they are in power. Why?

I recently observed a focus group in a large town in the SE. The level of raw anger about the whole immigration/asylum farce was high - but the degree of trust in the Opposition to sort it out was very low. It was assumed that "Are you thinking...?"-type appeals were nothing but cynical vote-getting.

Anti-immigration rhetoric from Tories induces cynicism from those who agree with the sentiments and arouses fury from liberal establishment types - BBC, judges, churches, etc - who then devote themselves to destroying any prospect of a Tory victory.

There is only one way forward. Say as little as possible until elected and then ACT don't TALK. If a newly-elected Tory government deported 500,000 illegal immigrants over a 2 year period, while closing the door on almost all new migrants, it would have 75% support and the left would be as impotent in its rage as it was during the 1980s.

The idea that the UK "needs" immigration is one of the most pernicious fallacies of the age.

We are buyng short-term economic activity - not the same thing as prosperity - at the cost of long-term social cohesion and national identity.

As for an amnesty for illegal immigrants, we have a de facto one already. Everyone - EVERYONE - knows that there are hundreds of thousands of people here illegally. Yet the government does almost nothing to identify and remove them.

However, the Tories must avoid this issue like the plague until they are in power. Why?

I recently observed a focus group in a large town in the SE. The level of raw anger about the whole immigration/asylum farce was high - but the degree of trust in the Opposition to sort it out was very low. It was assumed that "Are you thinking...?"-type appeals were nothing but cynical vote-getting.

Anti-immigration rhetoric from Tories induces cynicism from those who agree with the sentiments and arouses fury from liberal establishment types - BBC, judges, churches, etc - who then devote themselves to destroying any prospect of a Tory victory.

There is only one way forward. Say as little as possible until elected and then ACT don't TALK. If a newly-elected Tory government deported 500,000 illegal immigrants over a 2 year period, while closing the door on almost all new migrants, it would have 75% support and the left would be as impotent in its rage as it was during the 1980s.

I don't know why you should "strongly disagree" with me, James. I only clarified that I do not regard the recently arrived 15,000 Poles in Reading as being part of the "established population", whose views on immigration should be taken into account. (Nor should they be allowed to vote in local elections, in my view, but they are as a result of the Maastricht Treaty.) I said nothing about whether they're good workers, or good people, or whatever, just that they should not be included as part of the "established population".

There are 1.5 billion Chinese and now that cockle-picking in Morecambe is a new career opportunity
Cockling in the UK is nothing new - in fact some of my ancestors on the Norfolk bits of the family were Blue Stewkey Cocklers around Stiffkey back in the 18th and 19th centuries, greatly prized in the rest of the world to this day apparently and a dangerous occupation off the North Norfolk Coast just as it is on Morecambe Sands but cockling is only one of many occupations being carried out by immigrants whether authorised or unauthorised and only has come to attention because of how dangerous it is.

Nor should they be allowed to vote in local elections, in my view, but they are as a result of the Maastricht Treaty

Vote ? they can also be candidates !

Tam Large, how can you talk like people are some sort of "nationalized resource"? That's plain fascism. (Don't invoke Godwin, I mean that literally.)

I also note that your root idea is mistaken - economic migrants of the good sort are often coming from countries where prosperity is all but impossible, due to misrule, corruption, and socialism. "Sending them back" won't help anybody's fortune.

I wonder how many Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative party voters will reflect on their gross stupidity while queuing for hours to get their ration of one cup of water from a stand pipe.

All three parties support Britain staying in the EU. As a result Britain is legally obliged to allow 480 million people to come and live here any day they like. This number will increase by another 35 million when Bulgaria and Romania join the EU in January next year. A further 80 million will have the same right if Turkey joins the EU in due course.

Surely it is madness to give nearly 600 million people the legal right to live in Britain with no regard to the resources we can provide for them? Particularly as it costs the UK economy £15 million/hour, every hour, to be in the EU for no benefit whatsoever! This is compounding madness upon madness! Clearly this is akin to lunatics running the asylum. Unfortunately, an asylum where the inmates keep voting for them!

The debate on immigration is consistently and deliberately clouded by politicians from all three parties who argue that we "need" immigrants to run the NHS etc. and this was a good reason for staying in the EU. If I wanted to open 100 Chinese restaurants around the country and needed 1000 waiters from China would THAT be a valid argument for insisting that ALL 1.5 Billion Chinese must therefore have the legal right to live in the UK?

Jerry Wraith

"the important thing is the database and the biometric information is on everybody, retinal patterns, fingerprints, DNA samples.

The answer is both are needed and so are internal checks, this country is far too lax when it comes to Security Policy." 10:06

Is this a wind up.

Personally I wouldn't trust ANY Government with such information. The laxness in our security policy is that we do not control our borders and effectively monitor those non British people whom we allow in, coupled to which we give British citizenship/the right of abode too easily to foreigners. As a law abiding, born and bred, British citizen I take great exception to the prospect of being extensively monitored in my own country.

I'm afraid the problem is not illegal immigants, or "bad" immigrants over "good" immigrants - it is the total level of immigration overall.

East African Asians who arrived in the mid 1970’s amounted to 27,000. We are now taking twelve times that number every year.

Denis Cooper's excellent link above exposes the false economic argument. I once heard on the Today programme a Labour minister saying we needed immigrants because of the aging British population. David Willets responded with a study (by the UN I believe) that showed to keep ahead of the 'age bomb' the UK would have to import 60 million immigrants over the next 50 years.

This is the reason the South East (the most water deficient part of the country) is to be built over.

In addition: 13% (thats at least 206,830)of British Muslims think the 7/7 bombers were martyrs. 16% (254,560) would be indifferent if a family member joined Al-Quaida.
56% think Arabs had nothing to do with 9/11.

Immigration gives us nothing but trouble, and I personally would like to see all immigration halted, but politicians are forced to talk about how immigration has "enriched our cuture" - I long for an actual example of this!


Tam Large, how can you talk like people are some sort of "nationalized resource"?

Yes, Tam's suggestion that we should reject migrants for the good of their homeland was very amusing. Whoever believed "it's for your own good"?

Of course the Conservatives should have a policy on immigration. The fact that we don't talk about it at all is feeble. In the absence of any official policy I go on repeating our last policy when asked on the doorstep. It's better than nothing, though I wish we could beef it up a bit.

56% think Arabs had nothing to do with 9/11.

Understandable - Arabs are stuck in the 7th Century.............no wonder they find it hard to imagine them flying planes

Well with comments like that, it is not difficult to understand why Cameron is reticent about getting Conservatives talking about immigration.

Unbelievable discussion between Andrew Green and Jack Dromey on Today this am.

Dromey seemed to be wholly unaware that the economic interests of his T&G members are directly threatened by illegal immigrants (as set out very clearly by lefty Prof Bob Rowthorne over the weekend)

While Green presented a measured reaasoned argument, all Dromey could do was to rant hysterically about "the politics of fear" and how Green wanted to "hunt down" the illegals.

If I was a T&G member, I'd be after a new Dep General Secretary. asap.

I find it strange that for all the concern about the developing world with regards to disease, skills ect, that campaigners like Bob Geldof and Bono never seem to bat an eyelid that we take so many key workers such as doctors.

Right then, having been involved today with a campaign that is being organised, about crucial sections like Intensive Care Unit and full A&E facilities being closed, in the Award-winning hospital in our County Town, I have got back to the website.

First of all Annabel - you always make me laugh (a good way to get a point across!), and I agree with all you say.

Tam Large @ 10.46 - although Julian Morrison sometime later thought you were talking like a fascist, I agree with what you said, but I feel you didn't carry the thesis to its logical conclusion. And when I have said what I think that is, no doubt JM will think I am a fascist too!!!!!!!!!!

If the number of people are allowed to come here who want to - somebody else gave SOME numbers that could be involved - the source countries would indeed be denuded, BUT at the same time this country would be overwhelmed - THAT IS NOT SCAREMONGERING, it is commonsense. An over-burdened state would not be able to deliver all the gloss that these immigrants had been led to believe was available, which would make them feel restless and 'let-down'. At the same time the indigenous population would being feeling the same!! So nothing would have been accomplished for either communities. Of course trendy liberals - in government (with their own protection), in the media, especially the BBC (at one remove from everyone else), and the academics who again, often don't have much to do with the more sink areas of big cities, won't accept any of this until their safe little worlds begin to be affected.

I think a 'soft, cheerful type' could be a description of David Cameron, so maybe he should tackle the problem head-on, WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. On the other hand lets hope we don't have to wait too long before someone with real ability and courage grasps the stinging-nettle of a problem. No one in this government fits the bill, so forget it if you read these blogs Mesdames et Monsieurs, we don't want more false promises, lies and spin!!!

A World Population Clock is ticking on here:

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

It now stands at 6,591,476,000, and it takes about eight months to rise by 60,000,000, the present population of the UK. So anybody who really wanted unlimited immigration into the UK could have it, more or less, as the supply of people who would be very happy to come and live here is effectively unlimited.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1272

Its clear from some of the comments above that with some people what they mean when they say immigration they actually mean race. Put it bluntly they simply don`t want all these black people in the country.
Personally I find the attitude offensive and downright evil.
I am not against us discussing immigration but lets discuss it from the point of controlling our population which as a small island we need to do not use immigration as a way to start a discourse that the BNP would be proud of.
It damaged the party considerably during the last election campaign by the way we made ourself look extreme and at times racist regarding immigration. We should not make that mistake again.

Jack, your comments are bizarre. In the last election, the Tory position on immigration was not racist (you should listen to the BBC less uncritically) but incoherent. At present, there is no Tory policy on immigration. The point made above by a number of people is perfectly sound: in a world where travel is now much easier, a policy of effectively open borders (which Labour has operated for nearly a decade) will inevitably mean an unlimited supply of immigrants. You can hardly blame them: my family were economic migrants to the UK too a century ago. There is nothing racist or bigoted about pointing out that the economic and social upheaval produced by a policy of unlimited immigration is enormous, especially when significant numbers of immigrants fail to integrate meaningfully and live in ghettos which are often characterised by illiteracy, poverty and oppression, of women in particular. Not only is Labour's policy unworkable. It is also has a particularly harsh impact on poorer people. The major parties have conspired to ignore all those issues. That is why people in Dagenham have voted for the BNP as a gesture of despair. That is why Frank Field said what he said last week. More sense on the follies of current policy has come from Labour MPs such as Jon Cruddas and Frank Field than from the whole of Her Majesty's Opposition put together.

I was amused by the bizarre replies my post generated.

It is a fact that allowing fit and able young people to come here from impoverished countries takes them from where their abilities are really needed. It is a form of asset stripping - a brain / ability drain, from the places which can least afford it. Things will not change in those countries if the very people with the get-up-and-go to make them better simply leave for the rich west. To take the fit and able young people, and then give the countires they have left bags of food / money to is merely selfish paternalism. We need to help those countries to, regenerate and grow if global poverty is to be dealt with.

To take an example - a while back we were recruiting large numbers of nurses from the Phillipines to work in the NHS (and excellent many of them were too). Meanwhile in the Phillipines, there was a gross shortage of trained nurses and medical staff, in a country with huge medical challenges, especially in poor country areas. Was is really moral for us to do this and reduce the aid those nurses could have given to people there if they had not been in the UK? I believe not. We felt we needed them to maintain our standard of healthcare - but the need of their own country was far more acute and far greater.

I think you're spot on with that Tam.

We felt we needed them to maintain our standard of healthcare - but the need of their own country was far more acute and far greater.

The waiting list for a Filippina to get an immigrant visa to the USA was 16 years...............however the huge shortage of nurses in the USA means a girl training in the Philippines has much better prospects of earning hard currency to sustain family back home - that is why they go abroad to Saudi, Singapore etc.

"I am not against us discussing immigration but lets discuss it from the point of controlling our population which as a small island we need to do not use immigration as a way to start a discourse that the BNP would be proud of.
It damaged the party considerably during the last election campaign by the way we made ourself look extreme and at times racist regarding immigration. We should not make that mistake again".

Posted by: Jack Stone | July 05, 2006 at 18:44

During the last election Howard did not have a policy on immigration, despite the fact that the present Tory hierachy state that immigration was over-hyped. Howard was told in no uncertain terms by the EU that he would not be able to implement his immigration policy. Howard was presented with a golden opportunity to get the majority of the electorate behind him by slapping down the EU - Howard, of course, failed to do so and did not respond (what would Ken Clarke and co have said) - one of the reasons, I suspect, that myself and others refused to vote Tory. We shall be doing the same again should the need arise.

The paragraphs by Jack Stone would do the BBC proud. Are we to believe that if the Tories decline to debate immigration, which is of great conscern, their share of the vote will increase? If you believe that, then you will believe that "Jack Stone" is an undercover Labour man and a Tony Blair fan ...... come to think of it???

Michael McGowan @ 19.02 - 'Not only is Labour's policy unworkable. It also has a particularly harsh impact on poorer people'

Yes, a harsh impact on both the poorer immigrants and also the poorer indigenous population. So neither side benefits, as the more qualified immigrant gets a job and starts earning, and the majority of the earning indigenous population are not in the areas of the highest immigrant settlement. It does suggest that there should be a more firm encouragement to acquire the necessary aids to assimilation on the part of immigrants, so that they might find it easier to feel that they belong.

'That myself and others refused to vote Tory.We shall be doing the same again.....'.And you shall have another Labour government with all that entails.I hope that makes you proud. Don'tmakemelaugh.

Jack as always you are talking out of your hat to put it mildly.I can find not a single reference from anyone on this thread to 'black people'.Do you actually bother to read the comments or listen to party policies or do you just make it up as you go along so that the 'facts' fit your spurious arguements?

"the important thing is the database and the biometric information is on everybody, retinal patterns, fingerprints, DNA samples.

The answer is both are needed and so are internal checks, this country is far too lax when it comes to Security Policy." 10:06

Is this a wind up.

Personally I wouldn't trust ANY Government with such information.
The fact is that to tackle crime especially Organised Crime and Terrorism, not only harsh penalties and powers to detain people who are dangerous are required but also the information on such people - information on people's movements would help pick up a lot of people who have managed to escape notice because they have had a clean record, people who's movements were found to match certain patterns of offences or appearances of certain banned groups or individuals in certain areas could indicate they were involved in meetings, if you already have someone's biometric information then if that is found at the scene there is a quick and ready list of suspects - the scumbags who cause problems shoplifting and breaking people's windows can be put away and never see the light of day again, it needs scrapping of Human Rights legislation and restoration of Capital Punishment - authorities in past centuries had ways of dealing with transgressors.

Someone can be on a plane in one part of the world one minute and hours later be anywhere - people in modern societies have to accept certain loss of liberties in exchange for security and maintenance of their way of life, modern technology increases risks and also increases scope for fortifying society against troublemakers.

To take an example - a while back we were recruiting large numbers of nurses from the Phillipines to work in the NHS

I’m sure they’re touched by your and Melanie Phillips’ concern but I think you'll find that the nurses who came here were delighted to be able to send a comparative fortune home, and the poor communities they came from benefited. The Conservative approach has to be market forces. We can't start refusing immigrants because they have particular skills that their homeland needs.

I'm still intruiged as to whether anyone here has first hand experience of immigrants causing problems. Is it an issue the really deserves the attention we love to give it?

Firstly I don`t think when people talk about immigration they mean we should stop immigration from Australia, Canada etc they mean we should stop immigration from third world country`s or countries that do not share our culture or religion.
Also I think it is offensive when people link immigration to crime and terrorism and give the impression that all immigrants are criminals, terrorists or free loaders which clearly they are not.
Wether you like it or not Michael Howard spoke about immigration in a way that if he wasn`t an immigrant himself he would have been condemed for far more than he rightly was.
Personally I think we will have to deal with
immigration must it must be done in a sensative, fair way that treats immigrants with compassion and not as our enemies.

Jack, that is fine, so long as the immigrants concerned are not our enemies. As I pointed out yesterday at 09.50, the word "immigrant" is now highly emotive and it encompasses both the very good (and therefore very welcome immigrants) and the very bad (and consequently very unwelcome ones).
Can we not provide different words to indicate without further explanation which categories we are talking about?
Many years ago Labour banged on about "unilateral" disarmament; Maggie promptly renamed it "one-sided" disarmament, which put a very different complexion on the matter.

As usual Jack you make it up as you go along.Most recent Tory commentary regarding immigration has been extremely careful not to link it to race.Can you prove otherwise Jack?
Michael Howard can be criticised for many things but playing the race card was not one of them.I think you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for 'pretending' otherwise.

Now Jack Stone start with an atlas and then work out how many people you could fit into England as a theoretical maximum. Is it 100 million, 200 million or 300 million ?

Then decide how big you think London should be. I find it sad that there aren't any favellas as in Sao-Paulo - you know the ones along the Marginal - they give flexible cheap housing to people not yet on the property ladder, and provide a contingent workforce to engage in the flexible economy.

Now let us say 20 million is London's ideal size. At what stage would we reach 20 million and should it be 25% Nigerian or say 40% Bangladeshi. WE need to work on this so the Bangladeshis don't end up fighting the Nigerians.

So when we get to this point and have decided each family has a theoretical capacity limit of 2 children we can plan hospital facilities, GP surgeries, Schools etc.

What we cannot do is let muddle-headed types like you lead us into catastrophe by failing to organise and plan.

Tom Tom you prove my poiunt. Not once have you mentioned about people coming here from a non-black country.
The trouble when people talk about immigration is that when they talk about stopping people coming into the country what they really mean is stopping people that are differant from themselves not stopping those who share there culture and race.
I am afraid that when you discuss immigration you all to often end up discusing the subject in a manner that would make the BNP proud.

TomTom,

Throughout this thread you’ve made what you think is a logical extreme argument, but it’s so exaggerated and simplistic that it is quite pointless. You might as well be talking about what happens when the Sun become

Black Africans arrive in Britain at the rate of about 75,000 a year. Your 120 million Nigerians extreme is, at current rates, 1,600 years for the whole of Africa. Your 200 million extreme is 450 years of total current immigration. Your 20 million for London is 280 years at current growth. By these times the world economy will have changed many times over, and so will the dynamics of migration.

Instead of wild fantasy, why don’t you try and answer the question I’ve now posed three times in this thread, but nobody seems very interested in answering:

How has immigration impacted upon you? Why is immigration so important such a burning issue compared to, say, climate change, education, policing, defence, yob culture?

It really is quite bizarre!

...when the Sun becomes a red giant.

Jack Stone - I think if your reading age were higher you would see my concern was with capacity limits not colour coding

Thank you to many of you for for restoring my faith in the slabbering-jawed right-wing nutjobs that form the backbone of Tory soldiery.

The root cause of the anti-immigration attitude is fear and hatred of difference, intolerance of people who don't try to fit in with a non-existent, default indigenous behaviour. Wait a few years, and the once evil immigrant helps define the culture. You are OK with "foreign" people, as long as they behave like you.

Population projections show that net migration simply isn't a problem, it's a massive boost to our economy, and allowing EU nationals here to work is massively far-sighted and sensible. People have no interest in "swarming" our borders. If it's such a ridulously easy thing for them do, why don't they do it?

People have opinions about these things, but simply don't vote on the basis of them. Why do you think your rabid right-wing agenda was so unsuccesful, even against a bunch of useless market-obsessed warmongers?

Passingleftie.....pass on..........

How has immigration impacted upon you?

It has given me an inner city core which is 20% Muslim; it has produced C of E schools which are 80-90% Muslim. It has driven away student applications from the local University. It has led to police raids to arrest Muslims for terrorism offences; it has led to an exodus of white population; it has removed Christian symbols such as Nativity scenes from public spaces; it has caused people to whisper for fear of being overheard; it has led to increased drug-dealing and car-jacking, and brought huge numbers of women wearing full chadoor onto the streets who speak no English; it has brought rickets and TB into the region; it has given the city some of the worst health statistics in the nation; it has rendered areas of the city no longer safe for pork butchers or non-Muslim businesses; it has led to large numbers of 4 year olds starting school,unable to speak English. It has a City Hall with Urdu and Gujerati signs and every document in Gujerati, Urdu, Bengali, and the NHS recruiting translators with dialects from the Congo.

How it has changed. Why do you think North Yorkshire is such a sanctuary for so many people fleeing............and fleeing they are,

Now Mark tell me about where you live..........

TomTom, which city is that that is so riddled with problems?

Jack Stone,why just for once don't you answer the points I made to you?

Climate change is a farce - it is simplistic posturing based upon computer simulations. I am more concerned with crime - more concerned with congestion. Why do we have so few roads compared to other countries in Europe ? We have fewer cars than Germany or Italy but the place is more confested than either.

Education is no longer important - it is so debased I am worried that the 3% who fail exams are being discriminated against. There is no political party capable of rescuing education and frankly The State should just wither away since everything it has touched has turned gold into base metal.

As for Defence...........you must be joking. It has been run down for years. Thatcher sent men to The Falklands with redundancy notices after Nott's Defence Cuts.........Britain does not have credible defences any more and its Army is in the process of disintegration.

The country is simply failing and will slide further down the global order over the coming decades rather as Spain did after its heyday in the 16th Century

Mark..............they call it B R A D F O R D

"The Conservative approach has to be market forces."

No, the Conservative approach has to be to conserve British culture.

It is mass influx of people with a different culture that is the problem.

Amazingly Passing Leftie is actually right (even a stopped clock is right twice a day): "You are OK with "foreign" people, as long as they behave like you."

But instead we get 7/7, women wearing burkhas, riots over cartoons, arranged marriage, honour killings....

TomTom, your original argument was about the capacity of the UK. Prod a bit deeper and we uncover the real problem: muslims are unhealthy, lawless infidels and are responsible for the terminal decline of the UK. Apart from “you’re totally wrong and the facts just don’t support this”, enough said.

Jon Gale, when our problem was the IRA, were you so ready to put down a whole religion and people? We are a trading nation with a proud tradition of assimilating cultures and exporting the result worldwide.

The collective reaction to Passing Leftie shows just how little we understand or respect our political opponents.

What 'collective reaction' Mark?

Malcolm,

"Passingleftie.....pass on.........."

and

"Amazingly Passing Leftie is actually right (even a stopped clock is right twice a day):".

Okay, perhaps "collective" was overstating it. I'm happy for you to ignore that word from what I said ;-)

Thank you Mark - I now know what to believe. I know that the United Kingdom has elastic borders and that Bradford is a splendid place where people are flocking to enjoy the multicultural experience and that you Mark will be first among them.

As for Muslims being unhealthy - not my words but those of the Dept of health - creating Health Action Zones and specialist areas.

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/health/ethnicity/reports/healthyminds.htm

http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k4/feb/feb236.htm

http://www.haznet.org.uk/hazs/hazmap/h_brad.asp

* People from South Asian communities have formed a Health Equality Action Team to maximise the impact of the HAZ on communities that face some of the most severe health inequalities in the country.

So where do you live Mark ? Leafy Surrey ? Notting Hill ? Sevenoaks ? Marlborough ? Henley ?

Apart from “you’re totally wrong and the facts just don’t support this”, enough said

I doubt you could see a fact if it was flashing neon Mark. You are simply prejudiced and spout the same claptrap. Still it was London the chaps from Dewsbury and Beeston went to visit a year ago; and the house in Hanover Square the police just raided - well that bird had flown - but you managed to get the 21-year old to attend court in London.

I suppose if they keep moving south we can rest easy, but then you do let your Somali gangs come up North to murder policewomen. You really must get the Met to stop this.

are responsible for the terminal decline of the UK

Not so. That is the politicians Conservative and Labour. You should get out more Mark - we have 80.000 Muslims Bangladeshi and Pakistani and you will find they are very miffed about law and order and the decline of the United Kingdom, its moral degeneracy and its shabby public facilities.

All in all you would be surprised how many Muslims want immigration controls and for you liberals to take a hike so the country can establish some sort of order and stability.

Go and have a chat with Muslims about religion, it is a subject they love to discuss with decadent White boys so you should be okay provided you know something rather than platitudinous twaddle. You see Muslims have little time for the kind of flannel you spout and want proper conversation and engagement - a bit like the rest of us really

This thread is getting too personal.

Enoch Powell was right to say that massive immigration would change the country out of all recognition.
We are a small island, and successful immigration has nearly always been white and few in numbers, so after two generations the immigrants are indistinguishable from the host population.
No culture can survive when nearly 12pct of its population is obviously foreign in race, language, religion and culture, and multiplying at a faster rate than the host race. We now have 26% of the British Muslim population who say they have no loyalty to Britain. Will many of these immigrants sacrifice their lives in war to defend our democratic freedoms? I doubt it.
By 2050 it is estimated that 35pct of Britain will be non-white. In France, it is estimated that 50pct of the population will be Muslim by 2050.
This is in my view a terrifying scenario to bequeath to our grandchildren. I don't want my village church converted into a mosque, or see the time and energy now spent on managing racial problems to spiral ever upwards. In a homogenous society (like Japan) a people all pull together ( as we did in two World Wars). Countries filled with many ethnic minorities become geographical expressions instead of nation states.
In 1971, Ted Heath's Immigration Act allowed for voluntary re-patriation. We should encourage this. We should also, like Singapore and France, give financial incentives for the host population to have many more children. After 20 years or so our homegrown population can take over from the Immigrants we have encouraged to return to the land of their forebears, or to where the religion/laws are more to their liking. There is nothing wrong with Immigration in itself, but it has to be tightly managed , numbers controlled, with illegals sent packing. We don't want, or need, those at the bottom of the food chain who then clog our hospitals and expect cash handouts from the suffering British taxpayer. When the host population starts to feel threatened, then trouble starts, and it is time that our craven rulers ( including the idiots in the Cof E who are frightened that the cross of St George upsets Muslims) start to put the British people first. We were never consulted about mass Immigration, and both Labour and Conservative parties are to blame for the racial tensions, crime, drugs and disease we have in this country, in our cities in particular, much of which is directly linked to the fragmentation of a once homogenous society into warring ethnic minorities. The police, NHS, and schools are close to breaking point under the strain of what has virtually been an invasion in the last ten years. It has to be reversed.

I live in Southampton (as I mentioned in my first post on this thread). We suffer 33/1000 violent crimes per annum, compared to Bradford’s 23/1000, Oldham’s 19/1000 and Burnley’s 29/1000.

I’m not saying that everything in Bradford is sweetness and light, but the problems are not the fault of the immigrant population as you seem to suggest.

Suggestions that Britain is falling apart under the burden of immigrants are just plain false.

We are a small island, and successful immigration has nearly always been white and few in numbers, so after two generations the immigrants are indistinguishable from the host population.

You're sayint that if they look like us, they're OK! Unbelievable!!!

It makes me sick that Conservatives get tarred and associated with attitudes like this. Go BNP, you'll be much happier.

I’m not saying that everything in Bradford is sweetness and light, but the problems are not the fault of the immigrant population as you seem to suggest.

Oh but you are.

I don't know where your figures come from but they are pointless.............http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5006852.stm

You seem completely to have misunderstood the issue. The murder of PC Sharon Beshinevsky took place outside a Travel Agent owned by a Pakistani businessman - his business was raided by an armed Somali gang from London - she was killed on his doorstep 2000 metres from the main police station.

It was an Asian businessman whose business was raided by an armd Somali gang who killed a policewoman. Which immigrant do you think is to blame ?

http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/wanted/ukmostwanted/?id=450,373,53,385

Have you seen him Mark ? I do hope you'll turn him in.............

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512f.asp

Urban Crime Rankings
Independant 'think tank' Reform ranked urban areas with populations of more than 100,000 using data on burglary, murder, rape, robbery, car and gun crime from police. The survey shows that the UK Crime Hotspots are:

1.

Vehicle crime: Nottingham
2.

Rape: Portsmouth
3.

Assault: Leicester
4.

Burglary: Stockport
5.

Robbery: Manchester
6.

Gun crime: Bradford
7.

Murder: Nottingham

Bradford takes the ignominious honour of being the business crime of the UK with 30 per cent of all insurance claims settled between April and June resulting from criminal activity. It is followed by Birmingham (27 per cent), Nottingham (25 per cent) and Bath (24 per cent).

Do you know why there is this problem Mark ? simply because West Yorkshire police have turned a blind eye to crime and one day they found out that the car-jackings and theft of luxury cars were to fund a downpayment to enter the drug trade which is very big here. Even Radio 4 Analysis ran a programme on the crime families who import and distribute into Leicester and Nottingham from Bradford.

The raids that started taking place used to yield £30.000-50.000 in cash in the houses of drug dealers living on benefit. The gang murders in Keighley started to make the police look a bit naff.

The fact is crime has flourished because West Yorkshire Police closed their eyes and shut their ears until it started to get to the point of shoppers at Tesco being held up at gunpoint and mobiles being stolen at gunpoint.

It is good that the BBC doesn't report too much it would disturb your complacency. You should note also that once Conservatives used to hold seats but now can only do so in suburbs where White flight gives them a chance to battle with the LibDems...........

t makes me sick that Conservatives get tarred and associated with attitudes like this. Go BNP, you'll be much happier.

It is stupid comments like this that cause people to do so and it is why in this area there was a swing against the Conservatives to Labour in May 2006 local elections. In both Leeds and Bradford Conservative Councils only survive because of LibDem, and in Leeds LibDEm and Green support. In Bradford Labour is now the biggest party.............do you know why Mark ?

Because the BNP took 27.5% vote and came second in 9 of 16 wards they contested driving the Tories into 3rd or 4th place; and frankly I do not see the Conservatives ever capturing Northern parliamentary seats but becoming merely a Southern Regional Party just as the SNP is a Scottish Regional Party.

Of 23 Parliamentary Seats in West Yorkshire Conservatives hold ONE with a majority of 400 votes.

Of 15 Parliamentary Seats in South Yorkshire Conservatives hold ZERO seats.

Of 18 Parliamentary Seats in South Yorkshire Conservatives hold EIGHT seats.


So of 56 Seats in Yorkshire Conservatives hold just NINE.

Of 18 Parliamentary Seats in North Yorkshire Conservatives hold EIGHT seats.

It is stupid comments like this that cause people to do so...

If my comment was stupid, are you saying that you endorse "successful immigration has nearly always been white and few in numbers"?

it makes me sick that Conservatives get tarred and associated with attitudes like this. Go BNP, you'll be much happier.

It is stupid comments like this

There is nothing stupid about not wanting to be associated with racist comments. However, I fear that we're beyond useful comments so I'm stopping on this thread.

So of 56 Seats in Yorkshire Conservatives hold just NINE.

http://europhobia.blogspot.com/2005/01/west-yorkshire-bnp-and-conservative.html

If Labour had a proper opposition they wouldn't have got away with half the crap they've pulled; if Labour had a proper opposition, fringe groups like UKIP and the BNP would barely register in political coverage; if Labour had a proper opposition, we might have avoided the Iraq debacle; if Labour had a proper opposition the pension funds may still be intact; if Labour had a proper opposition habeas corpus may still have been a fundamental right in this country; if Labour had a proper opposition.......

What do you really want Tom Tom. The Conservative Party to stand for withdrawal from the EU and the apartheid in this country. By implication that is exactly what you are proposing.
You do not make yourself popular by apeing the policy`s of right-wing extremists.

I have not heard you once article a sensible policy Jack Stone. I doubt you engage in ratiocination onany level but merely recite the mantras your primary school taught you.

It doesn't matter what I want - the Conservatives appear to be irrelevant with just 9 of 56 seats in Yorkshire.............what are you going to do about rebuilding Conservatives in Yorkshire Jack Stone ?

I am interested in hearing how you will revitalise the Conservatives. I hear nothing but negativity from you casting aspersions on anyone who disagrees with the ideological positions you proclaim.

Now Jack Stone - rebuild Conservative presence in Yorkshire..........

What a shame that a responsible debate about where we as a party should go on immigration should have come to this.

You're right Malcolm. Thread closed.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker