Immigration: Britain solves the wrong problem

It is illegal immigrants and “asylum seekers” that are the problem so Britain is attacking legal immigrants!

“Strict new controls for migrant workers involving compulsory fingerprinting and an Australian-style points system will be announced today. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, will tell MPs that would-be migrants must prove that they will bring economic benefits to Britain before they are allowed into the country. The initiative is widely seen as an attempt to outflank the Conservatives, whose immigration policies have struck a chord with voters.

However, the Tories, who are proposing also to limit the number of asylum-seekers, insisted that voters would still have a clear choice between policies. They claimed that Tony Blair had a long history of making promises on asylum that he had failed to keep. David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said that the asylum system was out of control. “After eight years in power, and just months before an election, Mr Blair claims that he can fix Britain’s chaotic asylum and immigration system. It’s all talk.”

Mr Blair, writing in The Times today, calls his plans “strict controls that work”. The Prime Minister acknowledges public disquiet over asylum and immigration, calling it difficult and immensely complex. He denies that ministers wish to avoid a debate on the issue and attacks an annual quota solely on practical grounds. “The Tory pollsters will have told them it’s a hot issue for the public, as ours tell us,” he says. “They will also have told them that the public believes the politicians won’t discuss immigration and asylum for reasons of political correctness…. The reason this area of policy is difficult is nothing to do with an absence of political will or political correctness. It is because the challenge of immigration and asylum is immensely complex. Every wealthy country in the world has it.”

At the heart of the strategy, set out in a five-year plan being published today, are a points system to prove that immigrants would benefit the economy and fingerprinting for two million people with visas to stop them destroying documents and disappearing into the black economy. The decision to embrace a points system puts Labour policy close to that of the Tories, the chief difference being that they want an annual cap on numbers, including refugees, while Labour proposes limits based only on economic need.

The key to the proposals, is tough new controls on “chain migration” when immigrants who enter legally are followed by their extended family”.

More here

Posted by jonjayray on Monday, February 7, 2005 at 03:53 PM in British Politics
Comments (2) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Matra on February 08, 2005, 12:33 AM | #

Liberal war hawk (and future neocon?) David Aaronovitch writing in Tuesday’s Grauniad on immigration: “Why should the capital lose out because the rest of Britain is so crabbed and provincial in its attitude towards newcomers? However much swingeing restrictions might suit the sensibilities of the white suburbs, they don’t do anything for those places where the immigrants actually go.” I guess he doesn’t get out of London too often.

Here’s another remark he makes after praising a Turkish shopkeeper: “Think about Rodney Hilton-Potts, the insurgent proto-populist who won that silly competition on ITV and will now stand for parliament at the next election. Asked by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight whether he would have allowed Jewish refugees to enter Britain in the late 30s, Hilton-Potts replied that his answer would have been, “Sorry, we’re full!”

What sensible demographic policy would stop the Turkish shopkeeper coming in, while permitting a troglodyte like Hilton-Potts to remain?”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1408007,00.html

Well, David, one that favours the retention of the historical nation over whatever dubious economic and cultural benefits cosmopolitanism has to offer. Hilton-Potts isn’t just lucky to have been born in a more successful country than the Turkish shopkeeper. His ancestors and the culture they created had a little something to do with it. The Turkish shopkeeper may be a decent person and a net economic contributor to society but a nation, like a family, can only absorb so many new members and retain feelings of kinship. Of course, that’s the problem right there. To Aaronovitch and his fellow transnational elites nations are mere abstractions. With such a mentality dominating the entire culture it’s difficult to get excited about Blair’s very limited pre-election reform proposals. I suspect it is just an attempt to calm the natives and hope things blow over.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 09, 2005, 08:52 AM | #

Yes, quite so. It’s all just the process of “shoring up the vote”. Labour views our white European country as a hive of injustice and exclusion. To commence now, a matter of a very few months before the election, to throw a few sprats to the electorate is an act of contempt.

We would do well to remember the two poles of the immigration debate: white monoracialism <> deracinated cosmopolitanism. You can have one or the other but you can’t have both, not in the long run. If you don’t want to lose the first you must do more than gesture politics like Clark’s points system. You must set about securing the future, which can’t be done without repatriation on the same scale as post-1948 immigration.

All other considerations are vain.

Next entry: The “Secessionists”

Previous entry: Summers challenged leftist religion about heredity

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa