Conservatives seek less immigration from non-EU nations

David David and Damian Green are publishing a new paper on immigration today - 'Controlling Economic Migration' (download pdf of full text).

The paper begins by hoping that a consensus might emerge on building a "socially responsible immigration policy" and suggests that such a consensus should have the following main ingredients:

• Asylum policy should be decoupled from economic migration.
• An acceptance of the economic benefits of immigration but "not of all or any immigration".
• A two stage process for controlling economic immigration: (1) an economic eligibility test should determine who might be admitted to Britain; and (2)  a social consequences test would decide actual numbers of immigrants according to likely impact on the environment, public service capacity and community cohesion.

The executive summary of the report repeats the Tory commitment to the creation of a dedicated border police force and promises that the overall Tory policy could be expected to produce "significantly less than current levels [of immigration] from the rest of the world outside the EU."

Editor's comment: "David Cameron has won the right to be heard on the immigration issue in a way that eluded his predecessor.  It's good to hear Tories talking about the issue of immigration in a way that is moderate in tone and rightly decouples the issue of immigration from asylum.  The party was wrong to propose an artificial cap on asylum numbers at the last election.  Britain must always be ready to accept exceptional numbers of asylum seekers in times of humanitarian crisis and the Tory leader was right to say that genuine asylum seekers should be taken "to our hearts", fed, clothed and schooled.  This paper on economic immigration "sounds sensible" - words used by this morning's Sun newspaper - but offers no bankable commitment to reduce levels of economic migration from outside of the EU.  These are early days in this Parliament but those Britons most worried about the level of immigration into Britain will find little specific reassurance from this paper.  ConservativeHome agrees with the overall welcome from MigrationWatch's Andrew Green:

"This is an intelligent and well-judged paper.  The direction is right, but the beef must follow.""

>>> Iain Dale interviews David Davis about this policy on 18 Doughty Street Talk TV tonight at 9pm.

Comments

[TomTom]

Britain must always be ready to accept exceptional numbers of asylum seekers in times of humanitarian crisis

When Iraq collapses I hope they make their way to Witney to make it as multicultural as some of the inner cities - I bet there is not even a mosque in Witney...........shameful.

[Jamie Oliver's Sausage]

Why has David Cameron earned the right to put forward a "nice" policy on immigraion?

Oh I remember. Its because he wrote the "nasty" policy for the last election manifesto.

[Tory Loyalist]

The vast majority of normal, ordinary British people - outside Notting Hill and the "Cool Britannia" urban yuppie ghetto - don't want a "nice" immigration policy.

They want an end to immigration - period.

Britain is full.

[Sally Roberts]

Jamie Oliver's Sausage @ 07:18 - You make a fair point in that Conservative immigration policy does not appear to have changed since before the last Election. Many of the points being made now are those which the Kirkhope Commission had also looked at and recommended.
The problem with immigration as an issue for us in the 2005 General Election was that our style was perceived as harsh. What we have to do now is to get across the same points but in a way that the middle-of-the road member of the public can accept.

[SimonNewman]

"What we have to do now is to get across the same points but in a way that the middle-of-the road member of the public can accept."

That's exactly right. It was the tone that was repellent in 2005, not the policy, to the extent that there even was a policy.

My feeling re immigration is that current non-EU economic immigration, which appears to be the focus of this announcement, isn't the problem. The big problems are asylum seeling, large-scale family reunification, and illegal immigration.

[RKO]

Tory Loyalist @ 7:22 "They want an end to immigration - period"

It is simply not possible under any circumstances to have a situation where no immigration whatsoever is permitted. There isn't a country in the world which adopts such a policy, except perhaps totalitarian North Korea.

What if a Briton married to an American wished to settle in the United Kingdom with her husband? What if the Mayor of London wanted to invite Bob Kiley to work in the UK and sort out our transport system (ha!). What if Jon Bon Jovi needed a work visa to tour and perform concerts in the UK? What if Chelsea wished to employ a talented striker from Europe? What if Uzbekistan Airlines needed to employ native Uzbek speakers to staff its London office.

Etc...

[ukfirst]

The ability to control non-EU immigration is almost entirely an EU competence, and, of course, immigration from the EU is completely uncontrolled. So what is David Davis on about?

[ToMTom]

What if a Briton married to an American wished to settle in the United Kingdom with her husband?

Since I have experience of this let me tell you.

First the foreign spouse would have to file at a British Consulate abroad all papers including a $500 non-refundable deposit for each family member, copies of all letters exchanged between the parties to prove a long-term relationship.

If after seberal months of processing by the Joint Foreign Office-Home Office unit leave were granted to immigrate a temporary visa would be granted.

The spouse would not be permitted to be a burden on public funds or receive any benefits for the first two years, nor be permitted to work.

After two years the marriage would be validated to show the couple had lived throughout in the same household and had not claimed any welfare benefits.

Now, if the spouse entered illegally and claimed asylum - benefit would be paid and probably a work per,it issued to reduce the backlog of asylum claims. The suckers are those who enter legally because they get treated like criminals and those who enter illegally get rewarded like immigrants welcomed to a grateful country

[Sean Fear]

Immigration policy from non-EU nations is not an EU Competence, although the European Commission would like to make it one.

We should also be concerned about *non* economic immigration from outside the EU. Spouses and family reunions (which are of no benefit to the UK) are a major factor in immigration from third world countries.

[Angelo Basu]

Making economic migration more transparent and fair would give the opportunity to take a much tougher stance on asylum so that only genuine refugees would have any chance of admission. Doing this would at least in theory discourage people from playing the system in the way TomTom describes because they would have little chance of getting asylum but would, if they fulfilled the economic and social criteria, be able to be economic migrants.

However, the key to all this would be to back up the policies with the right committment and resources to show that it would be stringently enforced. Any number of policies, however well-meaning, will be irrelevant if in practice their provisions can be sidestepped on the basis of administrative expediency.

It might be difficult to enforce, but I can't see any reason in principle why our asylum policy and practice could not be to refuse immediately and absolutely any claim for asylum from anyone who has entered the UK from a safe country (EU/EFTA, US, maybe the Commonwealth).

[Deputy Editor]

Good to see Cameron sticking his oar in on this issue.

However, I've always had a slight concern with the popular notion that we should only take professional migrants from developing countries. Developing countries - East Timor, Cambodia, Mali etc, desperately need to build a professional class to develop.

The latter country has one doctor for every 40,000 people whilst Italy has one for every 139, yet I'm sure Italy would be happy to take on doctors who had been trained by Mali's scarce resources. Who are the "leeches" in this situation?

I think this is a reality we can do little about, we can't blame people and nations wanting to better themselves. But idealistically, shouldn't be the other way around?

[RKO]

TomTom, sure, I'm aware of the procedure as it exists now (my wife has a Romanian passport), but my point was that under the policy advocated by Tory Loyalist this sort of family reunion would be banned altogether. The main thrust of my argument was that it is simply not possible for any country to have a policy of "zero immigration".

[RKO]

Sean Fear:

"Spouses and family reunions (which are of no benefit to the UK)"

I would say it is of significant benefit to Britons married to non-British citizens.

I think we also need to draw a difference between Mr. Smith who brings his English-speaking American wife to the UK, or Mr. RKO who brings his English-speaking Romanian wife to the UK, and the situation of Mr. Abdullah Khan who brings his wife, mother, father, three uncles, two aunts, ten cousins, second wife, third wife, second husband of his first wife, etc, to the UK from Pakistan, with none of them speaking English. However, I understand that Blunkett cracked down considerably on this "chain migration".

I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

[SimonNewman]

I have a query. Leaving aside what the EU says we can do, do people here think it's racist and/or undesirable for UK immigration policy to discriminate in favour of:

1. Anglosphere nations - US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand?

2. Culturally North-West European countries (France, Austria, Germany, Scandinavia et al)?

3. Developed-world countries (eg Japan)?

[Dave Groton]

I don't accept that Britain should prioritise potential immigrants from EU countries above those from other nations.

Why should a Frenchman get the nod ahead of an Australian? It makes no sense at all - if you had to pick one, I'd have thought a Commonwealth member who can speak English would be a better fit.

We also need to radically reduce the inflow into our country.

We're stuffed to bursting, and it is causing a significant strain on our public services, and threatening to undermine our shared values.

No leftie would flinch at the suggestion that mass English migration to a small foreign country could be disastrous for the natives. Yet they refuse to accept that we are under strain her, whilst, often, choosing to live AWAY from 'multicultural' cities themselves, the hypocrites.

People will counter that we need immigration to fill the unskilled cheap labour jobs no-one here wants to do. That might change if we weren't so absurdly generous with our welfare payments.

We need and should welcome some immigration, and of course we should offer some people asylum. But we can't take in every deserving case, and frankly, it does beg the question who is going to rebuild these shattered countries if all the adults are fleeing. There needs to be real evidence that someone's life is directly threatened.

Finally, we need to get serious about the importance of everyone here being able to speak English. I think we need to put more pressure on people. Ceasing to publish local government literature in foreign languages would be a start.

[RKO]

TomTom, actually, having read over your post again, there is a slight correction. You are right that the foreign spouse cannot claim benefits (nor can the British citizen for the initial two years), but the spouse is allowed to take on paid employment.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Simon Newman 10.29

I am not sure if this is a loaded question, it is almost certainly an IRRELEVANT question.

Surely, if we restricted immigration to people from your list, in that order of preference, then the UK as a whole would be better off. Is that not the best way of distinguishing "good" policies from "bad" policies?

For example, there are thousands of Australians/New Zealanders over here who strictly speaking shouldn't be, and I guess the same number of Brits Down Under. Does this do either country any harm? I think not.

BTW My wife is from Malaysia, we got married here. We had to go to Lunar House a couple of times and it wasn't much fun getting a visa but it was no big deal really. Perhaps that's because Malaysia is a Commonwealth country?

[Andrew Woodman]

I have sympathy with the Deputy Editors point regarding taking professionals from Countries which really can't afford to lose them.

I suppose the point that they come to work here for a few years, and then take new skills, ideas and cash to a developing country, may be a better form of International development than simply chucking cash at corrupt dictators.

[Adam]

Limiting immigration from outside the EU to skilled workers is the same recycled policy of previous leaders. Most unskilled migrants from outside the EU work their socks off doing jobs for a few pounds an hour which unskilled people in this country simply aren't prepared to do as their loss of social security benefits would mean its not worth it for them to work for very little additional income.

The pace of change in India/China means that the global balance of economic power is changing and we will not in future be the default setting for migrants wanting to have a better life.

To control migraton, we need to change our tax and social security systems where we make work worthwhile for the lower paid by reducing tax and allow all immigrants to work including asylum seekers and cut off benefit payments to all new asylum arrivals after 6 months or so. That would ensure there would always be a net benefit from migration regardless of whether they are skilled or not.

[Ben Redsell]

At last some sensible debate about Immigration, without resort to the far right's constant barage of hate. Well done David for espousing sensible, well thought out proposals.

As a free market Tory I always felt slightly uncomfortable with imposing false limits and caps on immigration, and this will allow those people that can benefit the economy to come in as economic migrants, but in a controlled and sensible way that reflects the infrastructure about to support them.

[Deputy Editor]

I suppose the point that they come to work here for a few years, and then take new skills, ideas and cash to a developing country, may be a better form of International development than simply chucking cash at corrupt dictators.

That would be the perfect system, but relies entirely on the selflessness/home-sickness of the migrant.

If DC was looking for something to sugarcoat the much-needed strengthening of the immigration system, it could be to simultaneously support some kind of Government grant to UK engineers/surgeons/accountants etc who want to take a few months out of work to do some training abroad.

There are already some similar schemes out there, but like he did with Young Adult Trust he could advocate a larger, more official body.

[SimonNewman]

Mark:
"Surely, if we restricted immigration to people from your list, in that order of preference, then the UK as a whole would be better off. Is that not the best way of distinguishing "good" policies from "bad" policies?"

I think you've answered my question in that you think it is desirable. I would agree that, yes, the UK would be better off. I'd say that this was a very important way of distinguishing good from bad policies, although perhaps not the sole determinant in extreme cases. Eg most of us here would think that it was a good thing that Britain entered WW2 against the Axis powers, whereas it's at least debatable whether doing so was to Britain's own benefit.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Adam 10.55

"Most unskilled migrants from outside the EU work their socks off doing jobs for a few pounds an hour which unskilled people in this country simply aren't prepared to do as their loss of social security benefits would mean its not worth it for them to work for very little additional income."

That was the point of the reforms I suggested in my report at www.bowgroup.org. By restricting means testing to the standard rate of tax, all benefit claimants would find it worth while working; under the current mish mash of rules they lose around 80% of their earned income and have a mountain of forms to fill in.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Simon 11.07, I am not sure that the UK "entered" WW2, was it not forced upon us?

[George Hinton]

So a nice policy all neatly laid out just waiting for some apparatchik or commissar from Brussels to say "non", you must comply with our rules.
Is that a possibility?
Frankly i am fed up with this country being used as a dumping ground by the rest of europe for the great unwashed.
I don't care if they are asylum seekers, i don't give a damn for the humanitarian aspects, these people should seek asylum in contiguous nations. Not pay monies to smugglers and criminal gangs to be taken to europe and ultimately the UK.
Similarly economic migrants should only be admitted under strict conditions and for a limited time scale with no ifs and buts and are not a liablity on the state, ie no free NHS, no unemployment benefits and no other state handouts.
On the economic side we should make no distinctions between the EU and the rest of the world.
This country has become a soft touch for the spongers of the globe, it has to stop, and any policy on that matter will garner votes and support from all the country and will spike the guns of the NF/BNP.

[SimonNewman]

Mark:
"I am not sure that the UK "entered" WW2, was it not forced upon us?"

No - we threatened to declare war on Germany if they didn't leave Poland. They refused, so we declared war on them. Since they had no desire to attack us, it wasn't forced upon us. You can say we were upholding our treaty obligations, but it was ultimately a matter of choice. Germans have told me that they were forced into starting WW1 by their treaty obligations, hence not really their fault. I don't think that excuse relieves them of responsibility, and it shouldn't relieve us of responsibility for our decisions either.

[Dave B]

@Dave Groton
"I don't accept that Britain should prioritise potential immigrants from EU countries above those from other nations.

Why should a Frenchman get the nod ahead of an Australian? It makes no sense at all - if you had to pick one, I'd have thought a Commonwealth member who can speak English would be a better fit."

EU nationals have free movement within the EU, which includes the UK.

[Andrew Woodman]

'That would be the perfect system, but relies entirely on the selflessness/home-sickness of the migrant.'

Yes that is the problem of course. I like the idea of grants to train abroad. It would be good to see immigration as part of a more wide range overall policy which takes in schemes like International Development and Young Adult Trust, rather than something like the tone of the last elections policy.

[SimonNewman]

"EU nationals have free movement within the EU, which includes the UK."

EU nationals are *legally* allowed in freely, Anglosphere nationals aren't, but *morally* it ought if anything to be the reverse. IMHO.

[Dave B]

Official figures show HIV, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases increased sharply last year.

In the case of HIV, three out of four heterosexuals diagnosed with the disease last year had come from Africa.

Do we test immigrants for HIV yet?

[Dave Groton]

Yes indeed.

We should renege on our commitment to allow free movement within the EU.

[Adam]

Mark @ 11.09

I haven't seen the bow group report but will make a point of reading it.

I don't think looking at immigration in isolation is the way forward. The welfare system has to be reformed along with tax rates if we are to succesfully and competently deal with the concerns surrounding immigration. Going after unskilled migrants feeds the negative stereotypes of immigrants often built up by the press.

[Cllr Keith Standring]

The new Conservative plans to limit immigration risk introducing an unfair and economically harmful system. By refusing to challenge the EU's open-border policy, the proposals instead advocate arbitrary restrictions on non-EU migration, discriminating against the vast majority of the world's population simply because they are not EU members.

The Conservatives' proposals state quite rightly that Britain should aim to let in the most economically beneficial migrants. But instead of proposing a system that would do just that, they have fudged the issue for fear of criticising the EU. It is not just bad economics, it is ethically wrong to discriminate against 90% of the world's population just because they are not in the EU. For the tens of millions of loyal Commonwealth citizens, this is an insulting betrayal of their good faith. The choice is clear: either we sever our historic links with nations around the globe and cut ourselves off from some of the most vibrant economies of the world, or we reassert British control of our own immigration policy. To do the right thing we have to leave the EU.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Naughty Dave B! Have you not read "The Retreat Of Reason" that was inspired by that very topic? You can't ask questions like that because it discriminates against Africans and is not PC! To be fair, you'd have to test ALL immigrants, including presumabyl tourists, for HIV.

This is a bit like UK employers having to ask to see an English bloke's passport because if they only ask "foreigners" that is racist and discriminatory (cont. page 94)

[Frank]

A completely vacuus suggestion.

The EU is the problem, with at least a million eastern Europeans now working here. There is no point trying to curtail non-eu immigration. My wife is American and we went through crap to get her here, to pay more tax in a poorer country with worser healthcare! It's those that follow the rules that suffer.

The big problem is this - there are porous borders within the EU so, for example, Braxilians, can come through and then work in the UK through other EU States. The only solution is to have UK borders and remove the attraction of cash benefits.

Also, why the hell did we and Ireland let the new ascension countries workers in and the rest of the EU didn't. nice to think we feel we owe Poland something and Germany doesn't. The irony.

[SimonNewman]

Dave Groton:
"We should renege on our commitment to allow free movement within the EU."

Well IMO we should leave the EU. Sweden & the Netherlands should probably leave also.

[Mark Wallace]

The issue has been fudged for fear of standing up to the EU. It is economically unwise and ethically wrong simply to discriminate against 90% of the world's population just because they are not EU members.

We should aim to let in the best immigrants for our economy, no matter where they come from. To turn down anglophone specialists from outside the EU in favour of anyone who just happens to be an EU citizen is foolish, especially when India and China are going to be the economic engines of the 21st century.

It is also a massive slap in the face to the millions of Commonwealth citizens who have stayed loyal, and who also offer a good cost advantage as employees in that they speak good english.

A progressive policy would be to challenge the inequalities of the EU deal, not to accept them and cut off links with our essential future markets.

This is a good example of where being in the EU is driving our nation away from being a full, prosperous member of the global community.

Mark Wallace,
Campaign Manager,
Better Off Out.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Simon Newman 11.53, now you're talking!

Basically what would be nice is to re-create the Hanseatic League by us, the Dutch and the Scandinavians leaving EU and re-joining EFTA (while staying outside EEA, like the Swiss did).

[Dave Groton]

I agree, Simon Newman.

[SimonNewman]

Of course what Sweden & the Netherlands actually do should be up to the Swedes & Dutch, just as what we Brits do should be up to us. But I don't see how EU membership benefits them, I think Norway & Iceland were smart to stay out. Among other things (immigration et al), teaching law I see how the EU is destroying our common-law legal system, a system IMO generally superior to the Continental civil-law systems. This would be reason enough alone why we should leave.

[TomTom]

Germans have told me that they were forced into starting WW1 by their treaty obligations,

Crap...the Germans had no treaty to oblige them to support Austria in issuing an Ultimatum to Serbia 6 weeks after Franz-Ferdinand was murdered...............there were conversations with the German General Staff - democracies do not let generals make private arrangements between states

As for immigration - take a school district privatised by a Labour Govt and then take a school largely Muslim with non-English speakers which in the space of a few weeks - without warning - and without any extra funding - becomes 12% East European with non-English speaking Slovak children.

Why doesn't the Govt issue these Slovak children with Vouchers so the school gets extra money rather than having a school in a poor area having even less to spend per pupil, just more languages to translate ?

[SimonNewman]

TomTom:
"democracies do not let generals make private arrangements between states"

Hm, I think you might be surprised. :)

Anyway my point was that, true or not, treaty obligations don't excuse a state from responsibility for their actions.

[Denis Cooper]

The Sunday Times published an opinion poll on immigration in August - it's here:

http://www.times-archive.co.uk/onlinespecials/toplinepoll.pdf

and one of the questions ran as follows:

"Q6 Do you think the government should set a strict limit on the number of immigrants allowed into Britain each year?

IF YES: And what should be the limit? WRITE IN NUMBER"

The median response to the second part of that question was astonishingly low - about 10,000 a year. In other words, HALF THE POPULATION THINKS THAT EVEN 10,000 IMMIGRANTS A YEAR WOULD BE TOO MANY.

Have politicians paid the slightest attention to this?

[Opinicus]

Trying to police immigration is doomed to failure. We should look at the incentives to come to Britain. Immigrants make rational, sensible choices being rational, sensible people. If we want fewer immigrants we need to alter the benefits and welfare system so that it is less of a no-brainer to come to the UK.
1) We cannot refuse EU immigrants but why dont we say that they will be entitled only to the welfare package that they get in their home country whilst they are in the UK - i.e. if unemployment is 70 zlotys a week in Poland thats what they should get whilst unemployed in the UK or if Frenchmen have to pay 20% for healthcare in France we should set them a tariff in the UK too [afterall we have to pay the 20% when we go to France].
2) For non EU people we should require them to get a temporary ID card to register and then offer no benefits, free housing schooling or NHS care until they are nationalised as citizens after five years from entry. Any immigrant who can look after themselves for that period is just the sort of immigrant we want.
3) Asylum seeks should only be able to apply for asylum at the British Consulate in their own country, where there will be papers available to be checked to confirm their story of persecution and then we can set an annual quota of how many we can afford to admit and house and feed and we will fly them to the UK for free too. No more dangerous journeys with criminal gangs. Other asylum seekers would fall under 2 above and have to fend for themselves as would all spouses and family members.

Rational people make rational choices. All we have to do is stop bending over.

[TomTom]

Hm, I think you might be surprised. :)

I don't think so, it simply does not happen. Even Germany did not let a second von Molkte botch things

[TomTom]

I don't accept that Britain should prioritise potential immigrants from EU countries above those from other nations.

There is no such thing as immigration from one EU region to another.........since ALL are CITIZENS of the EU with free movement in the European Union there cannot be any such thing as immigration since each and ever single one of the 486 million EU Citizens is equal and those coming from Cyprus or Romania or Spain have just the same right to live in Britain as anyone born in this country.............there is absolutely no difference in EU law............and they can vote in local elections and stand to be elected as Mayor of London if they wish

[Tory Loyalist]

The problem with immigration as an issue for us in the 2005 General Election was that our style was perceived as harsh
____________________________________________

Perceived by whom? No doubt this would be the view of the anti-British urban leftie yuppie set, but otherwise you're just buying into the endlessly repeated Cameroon "Cool Britannia" claptrap.

Try asking people in the old mill towns of Lancashire whether our policy was "harsh". You'll get a pretty harsh answer I daresay.

As I said, Britain is full. That's not to say a Briton who (genuinely) marries a foreigner shouldn't be able to bring her here, but the presumption should be against any further significent immigration of any sort.

And if that means leaving the EU - well that's a bonus!

[RKO]

Tory Loyalist @ 14:56 "Try asking people in the old mill towns of Lancashire whether our policy was "harsh". You'll get a pretty harsh answer I daresay".

Fair enough, but you're changing your position now from "no immigration" at all, full stop, to no "significant" immigration.
No immigration at all is impossible for any country and no country in the world adopts this policy.
As for how well our hardline stance at the last election was at attracting new voters, remind me again, how well did the Conservative Party do at the last election in Lancashire and the old mill towns?

[RodS]

The whole debate is off-track. How can you decouple Asylum seekers from immigration and leave EU arrivals out of the equation. The issue simply SHEER NUMBERS versus FINITE SPACE. We are way over populated and will end up fighting like rats. Just compare densities per sq m in the South East and justify !!! England (and it is England) is undergoing an ethnic blood transfusion as the indiginous population starts to vote with their suitcases.

[Ali T]

Bravo David Davis and Damian Green for producing such a thoughtful document with sensible proposals.

By deliberately excluding the complicated issue of asylum, which is used by our opponents to try and call us racist or little Englanders, David and Damian have given us a clear and sensible policy that will appeal to those voters who are concerned about the overall impact of uncontrolled immigration.

The arguments have been well thought out along with the solutions.

Taking a holistic view of the benefit of immigration is exactly what we should be doing, instead of Labour’s shambolic open door policy.

The recognition of differing need on an annual basis should also give us the flexibility to respond to our economic needs, whilst protecting our over stretched public services and environment.

I agree with many of the contributors that there is still an issue with those unskilled workers from Eastern Europe, who will gain EU citizenship on 1st January. After the seven-year transitional measures come to an end we may once again see a sizeable influx into the UK especially in the south, which will put renewed pressure on social services, but luckily we have time to plan our response to this challenge.

I am mightily impressed at that which is becoming evident, namely that when David Cameron set up our policy reviews that he envisaged documents such as this being produced. Documents that are intellectually rigourous and that will stimulate debate and perhaps most importantly will resonate with the electorate.

This is one in the eye for those imbecilic Labour politicians who claim that the Conservatives have no substance.

[TomTom]

I agree with many of the contributors that there is still an issue with those unskilled workers from Eastern Europe, who will gain EU citizenship on 1st January.

There is NO issue here at all because Britain is as much theirs as yours - it is the British Isles region of the Single European Space - there is absolutely NO issue - if the whole population of Romania wanted to move to Slough there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to stop them moving from one part of the EU to another

These are the treaties signed by Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair - try Single European Act, Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam.............

The only influx you can stop is from the Indian Subcontinent, Africa and those who circumvent the immigration system as "asylum seekers" and who have been give Work Permirs by Labour such that Britain now issues MORE work permits than the USA

[armchair activist]

Only by leaving the EU can we have a fair,non racist and viable immigration policy.
The paper's title 'Controlling Economic Migration' is misleading as control cannot be effective if you exclude EU migration.When will Westminster parliamentarians admit they can control very little whilst power vests in Brussels.

[ukfirst]

As others have said, this response of the Conservative Party merely confirms their caving in to EU control of our borders. Like the present government they want to distract attention from EU immigration (which the government wants to us to think of as not immigration at all).

[Tory Loyalist]

remind me again, how well did the Conservative Party do at the last election in Lancashire and the old mill towns?

____________________________________________

We did badly countrywide for a string of reasons.

Blaming our immigration strategy is a lie endlessly repeated by the Cameroons, despite the fact that Cameron was an author of that very policy.

Of course people didn't believe any of the promises the Tories made, but we now know through polls and focus groups that the "It's not racist..." policy enjoyed majority support. Anyway, Lancastrians speak loudly enough on the issue when they vote BNP.

If we don't show that we stand alongside the ordinary voter on immigration we will lose out to the BNP and UKIP.

[TomTom]

We did badly countrywide for a string of reasons.

Since John Major in 1992 the Conservatives have not managed to articulate a programme - the 2001 and 2005 Elections were without substance because the parties had agreed to keep certain issues OFF the agenda.

I almost did not vote in 2005 it was so mind-numbingly tedious designed to be in a TV studio - Charles Kennedy stopped off at the local airport and said he had visited the city..................it was a PR stunt in 2005 with everything designed for TV cameras like putting up one poster for TV cameras before invited audiences.

Try any more such PR stunts and you will be out of business completely

[SimonNewman]

Jonathan:
"If we want fewer immigrants we need to alter the benefits and welfare system so that it is less of a no-brainer to come to the UK."

This is true, but your solutions are all illegal under EU law, which is one reason we should leave.

Tory Loyalist:
"Of course people didn't believe any of the promises the Tories made, but we now know through polls and focus groups that the "It's not racist..." policy enjoyed majority support"

Maybe, but I was a swing voter at the last election, I live in south London and those big bleak posters looming over the Tamil neighbourhoods did make me uneasy. If they had simply said "We will control immigration" I'd have been far happier. As it was, they became a "Don't think of an elephant" item - they made everyone reading them wonder if controlling immigration _was_ racist. Not good if you want soft-centrist votes in London. With a population steeped in cultural Marxist dialectic and ready to cringe at any mention of the R word, it seemed like a bad idea to me.

[SimonNewman]

Tory Loyalist:
"If we don't show that we stand alongside the ordinary voter on immigration we will lose out to the BNP and UKIP."

This is certainly true. Also there are increasing numbers of ethnic minority voters who are concerned about uncontrolled immigration as they see its adverse effect on their own lives, and not being white they're not bound by Political Correctness. The BNP are too racist and UKIP too unworldly to pick up many of these votes yet, but we're not exactly giving them much reason to vote for us either.

[Umbongo]

The "new" policy outlined just highlights the severe power vacuum concerning immigration into the UK. First, there's nothing to be done about EU settlement here (unless you address membership of the EU which is something Mr Cameron steadfastly refuses to contemplate): second, serious controls on non-EU immigration would have an enormous psychological (if not numerical) impact on recent immigrant communities which will be reflected both in their voting behaviour and their perception of Mr Cameron's party. Accordingly, genuine immigration controls which the indigenous British (even in Lancashire) might wish to see imposed are something that - in the real world - Mr Cameron will not contemplate. So we're stuffed!

[RobD]

Speaking as someone who was brought up right in the middle of the Lancashire mill towns I certainly thought our previous tone was too harsh. I think some people fail to realise that a few inflammatory comments can ruin the public's perception of a whole policy. This thread contains some good, constructive discussion on the issue but a few comments like "we're full" and "ethnic blood transfusion" could completely turn off a swing voter who recognises the benefits of immigration rather than the problems.

50% of the country may want to see less than 10,000 migrants a year but a good number of that 50% will be natural Labour voters so we need to make sure we do not turn away the other 50%. No one can doubt that the Conservatives will always be the toughest party on immigration, we therefore don't need to keep going on about it. We have more to lose than to gain by talking about this subject, I'm pleased to see us publishing occasional, reasoned, sensible papers on the issue rather than constantly using a tone which delights our core voters but alienates much of rest of the country.

[RodS]

This thread contains some good, constructive discussion on the issue but a few comments like "we're full" and "ethnic blood transfusion" could completely turn off a swing voter who recognises the benefits of immigration rather than the problems.

Really ? What exactly are the fully costed benfits of mass immigration ?

[Dave B]

@Mark Wadsworth

Have you not read "The Retreat Of Reason" that was inspired by that very topic?

Nope, but I've just ordered a copy via Amazon. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :-)

[Adam]

Thank God that we managed to produce a policy paper that talked about economic migrants, but not asylum seekers. The two are very different, need to be treated differently and that needs to be acknowledged.

Broadly, the policy seems fine, but the discussion on here is bizarre. Britain signed up to free movement of labour in the EU a long time ago. German financiers and Polish labourers come over here, and Brits take up jobs in Amsterdam and retire to Spain. If you really want to stop this, it will be far from painless.

But what really mystifies me is the idea that we're being unfair to the Anglosphere. Clearly not many people have tried to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand or the US. It's hard; very hard. Seems to me that the arrangements with the anglosphere seem pretty reasonable.

[Tory Loyalist]

Speaking as someone who was brought up right in the middle of the Lancashire mill towns I certainly thought our previous tone was too harsh
____________________________________________

Do you think your fellow-Lancastrians would agree with you, Rob? If not, why not?

Two extraordinary things have occurred to me about the Nice Party/Nasty Party nonsense.

Firstly, the people (including Cameron) who are now desperately trying to spin “nice” policies are the very same people who were previously proud to tote “nasty” ones. Even Peter “I’ve got a little list” Lilley turns up somewhere in Team Cameron.

Secondly, our modernisers have clearly undergone no sweeping Damascene conversion to niceness, because ever since Theresa May parroted those words in October 2002 she and her fellow-travellers have continued to support policies which they now dismiss as “nasty”. Immigration policies are a case in point.

So the so-called transformation of the party would appear to be a kind of swinging pendulum programme similar to the “nice cop/nasty cop” routine. You keep both in resrve to use each in turn when it suits. It's a cynical game which can certainly be effective in the right hands.

The problem is that every now and then the “inclusive” mask drops. I am not an expert on the nuances of PC, but didn’t Bernard Jenkin commit a sin akin to a Victorian gentleman breaking wind in church when he referred to “coloured” candidates?

And that was AFTER he had been sacked.

[TomTom]

Speaking as someone who was brought up right in the middle of the Lancashire mill towns I certainly thought our previous tone was too harsh

and in which former mill town do you live today - Burnley, Bury, Oldham ?

[Jamie Oliver's Sausage]

Strange coincidence that the new "reasonable" immigration policy is rushed into the headlines a day or two after we had "Tory Candidate Race Row"

Could the two possibly be related?

[Denis Cooper]

RobD @ 16:59 - "50% of the country may want to see less than 10,000 migrants a year but a good number of that 50% will be natural Labour voters" Hard to say. On the one hand, mass immigration tends to tilt the balance of power away from labour towards capital. On the other hand, when there was an identifiable "British working class" it often proved more tolerant and altruistic than some people might have thought. On the other hand again, it's quite obvious that the present policy of mass immigration is unsustainable, which is why in that Sunday Times poll 77% of respondents wanted an annual limit. Personally I believe the only democratic course would be to hold a national referendum specifically to decide that limit.

[Ben Redsell]

Oh dear. What seemed to be shaping up as a sensible debate along the lines of that called for by David Davis and Damian Green has now descended into anti EU ranting. Why is it so impossible to please some of the so called Conservatives on here? The well thought out and detailed policies laid out in the document Mr Davis has published is a sensible way forward. It takes the ground from under the Government, and isolates the extremists. Unfortunately some people are so bitter they cannot see the wood for the trees.

[Tory Loyalist]

In the social circles in which I move, which are by no means exclusively Conservative, immigration is universally regarded as "a bad thing".

Well that's hardly surprising, is it? The contrary view, beloved of the urban yuppie set and people like Mr Redsell above, is to say the least, counter-intuitive.

Actually I'm prepared to concede that the right sort of immigrant might in theory bring some benefits, but the problem is that we have run out of space, in the south-east certainly. It's time to stop pussy-footing around.

Here's what the Telegraph has to say this morning.

For a start, who says the country benefits from immigration? In a recent parliamentary debate, Joan Ryan, the Home Office minister, said Treasury calculations estimated that migration had increased output by at least £4 billion and 10 to 15 per cent of economic trend growth could be attributed to immigration.

But as a recent paper produced by the Migrationwatch think-tank pointed out, immigration also adds to the population and the benefit in terms of GDP per head — the only measurement that counts — is essentially zero.

The immigrant gains but the host country does not and it also faces the costs of extra congestion and pressure on services such as transport, health and education.

[Richard Carey]

I was hesitating to dive in to this thread due to the usual "how soon can we bang on about the EU in an disproportionate way" brigade, but I've now decided to wade in...

In the social circles in which I move, which are by no means exclusively Conservative, immigration is universally regarded as "a bad thing".

But if you break this down, are the people who you're debating with willing to distinguish as David Davis has done today between economic migrants and those in genuine need of asylum? - a vital decoupling in my view.

The Telegraph's "view" needs to be qualified (not for the first time) by saying that the Party has already taken note in the paper of the need to ensure that a net inflow of economic migrants needs to be set on the basis that the infrastructure of public services etc can handle that.

I have to welcome this more thoughtful approach to immigration. While selling our immigration policy on the doorstep in quite a diverse target seat in 2005, I was greeted by quite a few who asked me "you're not going to stop all immigration, are you?" I believe that most people genuinely want a fair approach.(I don't deny that a few want the UKIP/BNP drawbridge approach - I want to persuade them away from that, though!)

Balanced, sensible, thoughtful - and one piece of the immigration policy debate.

[John Irvine]

>>I was greeted by quite a few who asked me "you're not going to stop all immigration, are you?"<<

What sort of people asked that question and how many?

When canvassing for the party I have very often met people who were very strongly opposed to immigration and bogus asylum seekers.

Of course I have encountered the occasional "you're all racists" idiots, but I have never, ever, met anybody who appeared remotely normal who implied they liked immigration. Why would potential Tory voters in our increasingly overcrowded country think like that?

Haven't they got enough problems of their own without wanting the govt/EU to make them worse?

[Richard Carey]

What sort of people asked that question and how many?

I didn't keep an accurate count, but I do recall it coming up in a handful of cases which stuck in my mind as a side-effect of the perception of our policy at the time. It was in wards that were socio-economically mixed, in an ethnically mixed city which has had one or two issues between different communities in past years.

Why would potential Tory voters in our increasingly overcrowded country think like that?

I don't care very much if they are potential Conservative voters... would you tell them they don't have right to vote for us?

You've again lumped all immigration in together, something that the current poicy debate is determined to get away from. The tone of our message at the last GE did turn some people off - I think we're showing a good lead now in finding a new language to conduct this debate in. Don't you think that people would be turned off by us refusing to help those genuinely in need, for example?

Btw, as canvassers for the CP, neither of us is probably qualified to comment on who is "remotely normal"!

[James Maskell]

Could someone please do me a massive favour and send me a Word version of this to my email? My computer has been hit by a couple of viruses and my Adobe Acrobat is down for the moment.

Kudos to the first person to help me out.

[John Irvine]

>>Don't you think that people would be turned off by us refusing to help those genuinely in need, for example?<<

Who said we wouldnt? - but you should remember this.

When vast areas of the world were oppressed by Communism, asylum seekers were a trickle. These days theres more democracy - less dictatorship - and yet asylum has mushroomed.

That suggests to me that many of these people are bogus asylum seekers.

Actually the kneejerk reaction of most ordinary people to immigration is "anti". Sure if you started telling some genuine hard luck stories Im sure you'd get sympathy but I think youll find most people initially see immigration as a threat to their way of life. You seem to think they start from the opposite end of the argument but that's not the way it is on the council estates or even in "leafy suburbia"

People always did see it as a threat. Maybe you're too young to remember the pro-Enoch rallies, and immigration has got worse since then.

[Richard Carey]

People always did see it as a threat. Maybe you're too young to remember the pro-Enoch rallies

Thankfully, yes, I am. and thank you for the first thing that's made me still feel young today!! Because I'd really be happy to be associated with some bloke whose idea of a view on immigration policy was a speech remembered for being full of violent imagery... No thanks.

Who said we wouldnt [help those genuinely in need]?

I don't believe that anyone explicitly said that in 2005, but that our direction could have been taken to be rather hard in the areas of immigration policy where reasonable compassion might be expected, and this fed in to an overall view of our brand at the time.

That suggests to me that many of these people are bogus asylum seekers.

And you're doing it again. This policy paper is about economic migration, and I think there is great benefit in separating it from asylum (along with it being the right thing to do). Don't help our opponents to conflate the two debates.

Yes, we need a controlled and fair system for economic migrants along the lines discussed today. And we need a fair, compassionate asylum system that defends the rights of genuine asylum seekers in need by being robust against any attempts at abuse.

[John Irvine]

>>Because I'd really be happy to be associated with some bloke whose idea of a view on immigration policy was a speech remembered for being full of violent imagery... <<

"Some bloke", as you put it, was one of the three greatest Tories of the post-war era along with Maggie and Winston.

Im not sure that you are quite in the same league.

By the way Winston Churchill was far more "racist" in his private pronouncements than Enoch ever was.

Perhaps we should have dumped him, preferably well before 1940. It would have made us feel better about losing the war to a gang of real racists.

[Richard Carey]

Im not sure that you are quite in the same league.

And you haven't even met me yet! But I'm doing pretty well for us so far, I think.

My point that you chose to ignore was about the messages that come through, and that I could only remember him for a rather gruesome-sounding phrase in one speech.

Perhaps we should have dumped him, preferably well before 1940. It would have made us feel better about losing the war to a gang of real racists.

I'm sure you're not implying that I would in any way welcome any racist being able to claim any success - quite the reverse, I assure you. I have, for example, a rather unfortunate (and quite mad!) BNP councillor in my constituency, and want to ensure that people like that get hammered in May 07.

I just want to ensure that we are able to have a reasoned debate in our own terms, not theirs.

[Cllr Alexa Michael]

The paper ignores the fact that much current immigration is from Eastern Europe. Remember we were told that only about 15,000 Eastern Europeans would come to Britain to find work, and then 600,000 arrived. The point is that our immigration policy is controlled by Brussels at present - Britain MUST regain control of immigration, otherwise anything else is pointless and unworkable.

A couple of other points:

The education system must turn out a more rounded workforce. It is not good to take medical staff from developing nations - there are now shortages of nurses in South Africa and the Phillipines because we do not train / retain enough of our own.

The tax and welfare system needs to be reformed so that it pays people to take a job rather than depending on benefits.

[RobD]

"and in which former mill town do you live today - Burnley, Bury, Oldham ?"

None of them, I didn't say I still live there, I'm afraid I am an economic migrant away from Burnley to London! However I still have family and friends up there and I know there are some who would agree with me that the way we have sometimes tackled this issue has not been helpful to an already difficult situation in that area.

The problems in Burnley in particular are more to do with the way migrant (often 2nd or 3rd generation) and white communities have failed to integrate and inequalities in the way those two communities have been treated by local Labour politians.

No one is saying that migration, legal or otherwise is 100% positive but we have to recognise that if we are going to win the next election we have to appeal to swing voters who agree with our policies but who would be appalled by the tone we have previously used to communicate those policies.

[TomTom]

if we are going to win the next election we have to appeal to swing voters who agree with our policies but who would be appalled by the tone we have previously used to communicate those policies.

That goes without saying, but I contend that in 2001 and 2005 you did not have any policies and rushed out a few slogans to cover up a threadbare performamce.

In fact, no party put forward any policies which is why Labour playing the 1935 Baldwin Card of "Safety First" stayed in power with 21.6% support..................it was dire and symptomatic of a dying democracy that political parties abused the electorate with such a travesty

[Tory Loyalist]

However I still have family and friends up there and I know there are some who would agree with me that the way we have sometimes tackled this issue has not been helpful to an already difficult situation in that area.
____________________________________________

"Some" perhaps, but I suspect that wouldn't be the main priority of most people in Burnley, any more than it would be the priority of most ordinary Tories, anywhere.

YOUR problem was touched on earlier by Simon Newman. You live in London, where what passes for opinion is conditioned by the same Marxist PC hegemony which permits the unspeakable Ken Livingstone to continue to serve as chief magistrate.

Hence the leftwing semi-brainwashed "Stockholm Syndrome" attitude of metropolitan-orientated so-called Conservatives from Cameron downwards.

"Notting Hill" is shorthand for the left-influenced milieu in which these people live, move, and become Politically Correct.

[Tory Loyalist]

My point that you chose to ignore was about the messages that come through, and that I could only remember him for a rather gruesome-sounding phrase in one speech.

__________________________________________________________

Mr Carey; if your knowledge of Powell is confined to his (so-called) "Rivers of Blood" speech, then your awareness of Conservative history and ideas must be feeble indeed.

Powell was for years the main, indeed almost the only proponent of the free market principles that later became known as Thatcherism.

If I have one criticism of Powell it is solely over his rather ungracious refusal to accept Margaret Thatcher's tribute to his pioneering work, a snub prompted by their disagreements over Ulster.

[Richard Carey]

Mr Carey; if your knowledge of Powell is confined to his (so-called) "Rivers of Blood" speech, then your awareness of Conservative history and ideas must be feeble indeed.

I hold my hands up to the history part, Tory Loyalist - my academic education was strong on the sciences, and currently I'm normally too bothered with the present and the future to catch up on the past!

My political reading has been contemporary stuff, which has honestly interested me far more. However, I'm sure fellow Con Homies will quickly suggest a remedial reading list for me!

A greater concern to me is how backward-looking these debates become on here sometimes. A discussion of a new policy paper on economic migration turns into a discussion of Enoch Powell (which I seem to have unwittingly encouraged...). Elections come down to one party talking about the future and one about the past. Which do we want to be?

[Tory Loyalist]

If you have little or no knowledge of political history, Richard, you can have no context for your own political philosophy, whatever that may be.

How do you know yourself to be a Conservative if you do not know how other Conservatives have thought and acted in the past?

And how can you talk with authority about the future if you know so little about the past?

How anybody could find the vapid posturings of Blairism more interesting than, say, the Thatcher years, or even the endless problems Heath and Wilson faced with the unions I can't possibly imagine. but chacun à son goût.

However, it's not "looking backwards" to face current facts which you may find unpalatable. Many people in this country have a wholly negative view of "immigration", and that state of affairs has been exacerbated in recent years by the rise of Muslim extremism.

The party ignores at its peril the fact that the "multicultural" experiences of someone who lives in a council flat in Burnley may be very different from those of a middle-class Londoner who mixes with entirely cosmopolitan members of ethnic minorities.

If the party fails to address the sense of alienation felt by many working-class white Britons today they will support other partys with all-too-easy answers to the problem.

To be fair, the new Tory policy contains a deal of commonsense and David Davis is certainly the right man to front it up.

However, I regard the fact that it is underwritten by Cameron as very much a negative selling point.

[SimonNewman]

Tory Loyalist:
"YOUR problem was touched on earlier by Simon Newman. You live in London, where what passes for opinion is conditioned by the same Marxist PC hegemony which permits the unspeakable Ken Livingstone to continue to serve as chief magistrate.

Hence the leftwing semi-brainwashed "Stockholm Syndrome" attitude of metropolitan-orientated so-called Conservatives from Cameron downwards.

"Notting Hill" is shorthand for the left-influenced milieu in which these people live, move, and become Politically Correct."

I think it's probably true that the 'Notting Hill' set live in a world of dinner parties with leftist BBC types and have absorded much cultural Marxist dialectic as 'goes without saying' a priori assumptions, and that this both puts them in tune with the left-media complex that dominates the airwaves while isolating them from much non-metropolitan opinion.

I would also say, though, as someone living in London with its 40% or so non-white population, that having daily friendly contact with people from all over the world, many non-white, that quite apart from cultural Marxist influence on our thought processes, the natural tendency for us Londoners is to see ethnic diversity as normal and not problematic in itself. A stance on immigration that looks like 'white nationalism' isn't going to play well here. I think most Londoners are 'citizenists' - ie it doesn't matter where you came from, what matters is that you are here, you are loyal to the country and you want to make a positive contribution to our society. So the real division for us isn't white vs non-white, but patriotic vs hostile.

[SimonNewman]

Re 'asylum seekers' vs 'economic migrants', the discussion here seems confused. The vast majority of people claiming asylum are not people subject to political persecution from the government of the country from which they have just fled. Most asylum seekers are here because they believe they will do better economically, either via welfare or work. They use the asylum system because it is an effective means of entering the country, getting benefits, and they are unlikely to be deported. So the two categories are intimately linked, I don't see how they can be decoupled unless the balance of proof were shifted radically so that asylum seekers had to actually show they were genuine, which is not currently the case.

[SimonNewman]

Couple of US articles on citizenism by Steve Sailer:

"What's best for the citizens we already have?"

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_13/article.html
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051008_round2.htm

[ToMTom]

The Spectator - Rod Liddle

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/26310/part_2/not-funny-but-it-struck-home.thtml

[Denis Cooper]

Richard Carey @ 21:10 - " ... most people genuinely want a fair approach"

Let's get this straight - THIS IS OUR COUNTRY (whatever Brussels may think) and nobody, I repeat nobody, who is not a British citizen has any rights over it whatsoever - neither legal rights, nor moral rights. So "charity", or "compassion", or "generosity", or "magnanimity", may enter into it, but "fairness" does not.

[Denis Cooper]

RobD @ 00:58 - "The problems in Burnley in particular are more to do with the way migrant (often 2nd or 3rd generation) and white communities have failed to integrate".

I'm not quite sure if you meant it this way, but I would say that it wasn't up to the white communities to integrate, especially because they had never been asked whether they wanted to share their town and their country with large numbers of people from abroad.

If they had been asked, and there had been a conscious decision democratically arrived at after extensive public debate, that would be a different matter - then I would say that as the British people had invited people to come here, they had a responsibility to make them welcome and if necessary help them to integrate into British society.

But that was not the case - for its own reasons the post-war Labour government foisted mass immigration on the British people against their will, and so did the Labour government in the 1970's, and so has the present Labour government on an even larger scale, each time without any clear statement of that intention at the preceding general elections.

I've actually read the Labour manifesto for the 1945 general election, and I can say with confidence that there wasn't a single bloody word in it about allowing and encouraging mass immigration.

Basically this was theft - the Labour party especially, but also the Tory party, have stolen part of the shared birthright of the British people and given it away to people from other countries.

If it had been small numbers, or it was perfectly obvious that they were refugees or displaced persons in desperate need of a safe home - in fact, a lot of those were accepted - or if it had been restricted to exceptionally talented individuals who would clearly be a real asset to the country - then most people would have been prepared to shrug off that minor pilfering of their birthright, even though they hadn't been consulted.

But this was, and still is, more like a case of grand larceny.

[TomTom]

"The problems in Burnley in particular are more to do with the way migrant (often 2nd or 3rd generation) and white communities have failed to integrate".

Integrate into what ?

[Adam]

Immigration has never been subjected to a public debate?!?!

Where were you at the last election - pretty much nothing but immigration was debated.

[Denis Cooper]

I repeat, there was not a single word about opening up the country to mass immigration in the Labour manifesto for the 1945 general election. It was that government which kicked off the racial and religious problems which are now wasting so much of our time and attention.

[RobD]

TomTom:
"Integrate into what ?"

It seems that I will be accused of being a lefty if I say that it is perfectly possible for them to integrate into one community. However it isn't some kind of Cameroon fantasy that different races and origins can live and work together perfectly happily, millions of us live in that reality every day. Have we really been infected by lefties or does our experience override our prejudices?

[Jon White]

It is good to see a sensible and reasoned debate on immigration here, without vitriol.

I'm going to add my bit, for what it's worth. I don't support uncontrolled immigration, but sadly as we remain under the jackboot of Brussells we are powerless to stop it. (Though strangely France and Germany seem to be able to limit their immigration from other EU states. How does that work? Aren't we all supposed to be on the same playing field?)

However, it angers me when "Eastern European" migrants are condemned 'en masse'. Of course, there may be some trying to work the system, but in my experience the majority are hard working, and anxious to integrate and play a part in British society.

The other point I would make, at the risk of being called an Islamophobe, is that the majority of Eastern European immigrants are, nominally at least, Christian. Now, a person's religion is of no concern to me, nor should it be a basis for determining their eligibility for being allowed in. It may be very 'un-PC' to say it though, but de facto a Christian immigrant is less likely to be a security risk than a Moslem one. (I KNOW that not all Moslems are terrorists, but sadly most terrorists ARE Moslems).

Basically, lets lay off the Poles, Czechs etc. Most contribute.

[Jerry]

This is another crock of Conservative party crap similar to Ted Heath saying that going into the EEC would not cause a loss of our sovreignty. The Tory policy is to stay in the EU. The EU's borders are now thousands of miles long and largely uncontrollable. Setting up stronger border controls here is worthless when ANYONE from the EU has the legal right to come here any day they want. The Tory party therefore subscribes to the fact that 530 million people will have the right to live here after Roumania and Bulgaria join the EU in January next year. Saying that asylum is another issue also avoids saying that the EU has COMPLETE CONTROL over how many asylym seekers are palced in Britain. The net effect of all this is that the Tory Party will welcome with open arms millions of economic migrants and the mafia from countries like Bulgaria nad Roumania while denying entry to our Commonwealth cousins, the families of those who fought and died for our freedom in two world wars. This weekend Consservative MP's will be reverently laying wreaths on war memorials all over the country to honour those who lost their lives for our freedom. They and the Tory aprty and all their supporters are all a hypocritical and despicable pack of BASTARDS.

[Jon White]

Well thank you for that constructive comment Jerry. So much for my comment on lack of vitriol.

Whilst I completely agree that Ted Heath lied to his party and his country, whilst I completely agree that the discrimination against commonwealth country citizens wanting to come here is wrong, is it not also true that the Poles, Czechs, etc ALSO fought (often very bravely and with huge losses) ALSO fought in two world wars to preserve freedom?

[TomTom]

t seems that I will be accused of being a lefty if I say that it is perfectly possible for them to integrate into one community.

Sorry but i don't see this one community you speak of, I don't recognise it when I look around.

I see women wearing chadoor and niqab all around here, I have even seen young girls around 10 in the local hospital so dressed..............just what are they "integrating into" ? They will go to the pub for a Babycham or what ?

I have travel agents, banks, DIY shops etc all in Urdu, the City Hall is signed throughout in Urdu, there are even schools with signs in Urdu when not Bengali. The taxi drivers speak Urdu, Gujerati or Bengali to each other...........just what are they integrating into ?

I am at a loss to know what this integration actually is on the ground. Is it where Conservatives in Southern England move to ethnic areas and send their children to the mosque and teach them Urdu ? Just what does integration mean ?

My pharmacist is called Mohammed - I think that means he's Muslim - but I don't think his wife wears a chadoor and niqab, but so many of the people here do. There are Pakistani paents trying to get their children into schools with whites so they can get up the ladder but white women don't make babies on the same scale so we are short.

Maybe if more Conservatives moved up North they could integrate and show how it is done

[SimonNewman]

Denis Cooper:
"I'm not quite sure if you meant it this way, but I would say that it wasn't up to the white communities to integrate, especially because they had never been asked whether they wanted to share their town and their country with large numbers of people from abroad."

Although I would agree there's a strong argument that the primary onus is on the immigrant not the native, the fact is that the bulk of the native white British population are perfectly happy to integrate with newcomers, given half a chance. Tolerance for and acceptance of difference seems to be a strong part of the English character (I'm looking at it from an external perspective, not being English myself); something that the English value and that is (IMO) worth valuing. This is why the 'far right' like the BNP have always struggled to make much headway here compared to other European countries; their message of intolerance doesn't sit well with the natural English character. It takes a lot of provocation to get the much-put-upon English working class to vote for a racist party.

[SimonNewman]

"is it not also true that the Poles, Czechs, etc ALSO fought (often very bravely and with huge losses) ALSO fought in two world wars to preserve freedom?"

In the case of the Czechs, umm, no, I don't think so. Many east-European countries were Axis states - Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary come to mind. If we're going by "Who fought on our side?" we should be keeping out Austrians & Germans and letting in Serbs and Russians.

[SimonNewman]

TomTom:
"I see women wearing chadoor and niqab all around here, I have even seen young girls around 10 in the local hospital so dressed..............just what are they "integrating into" ? They will go to the pub for a Babycham or what ?"

Muslims seem to be a bit of a special case, though. I would argue that West Indian integration into Britain has been notably successful. There's very little black-white racial hostility nowadays in my experience(compare to USA). Hindu immigration also, and not just middle-class Indians; our local Tamil community were the most enthusiastic wavers of St George's flags during the last world cup.