Posts Tagged 'Immigration'

That anti-EU vote, again…

Following on from the previous post, asking where the anti-EU vote the media keeps talking about is, ComRes has published the findings of a poll of UKIP voters at the European Elections asking them to prioritise the issues that determined why they voted for the party.

The details, published on Political Betting, show that leaving the EU trailing a long way behind controlling immigration in the priorities of those who voted UKIP.

So even though this a ComRes poll, we are once again left to ask where this huge anti-EU vote – which the legacy parties and media are determined to use as an explanation for the UKIP vote and justification for the fantasy EU reform agenda – is.

In years gone by UKIP members would have ranked leaving the EU as their number one issue by a very long way.  But that is clearly no longer the case.  Immigration has become the big issue, despite UKIP having no understanding of the global dimensions of immigration rules and no policy to address them, and it is that subject which has seen support for the party increase.  The anti-EU cause is being diluted and eroded.

This is leading to the other parties and media applying an outdated and inaccurate interpretation that they wish the metrics would underpin, rather than an interpretation of what the metrics actually show.

New Year, but same old hypocritical Labour

Today could not go unmarked following the speculation, hype, scaremongering and bitter argument in the run up to the entitlement of Bulgarians and Romanians to live and work without restriction as ‘EU citizens’ in the UK.

The Guardian, as always, chooses to report on Labour’s words of condemnation – that the government has failed to introduce measures to protect the rights of low-skilled British workers whose jobs may be threatened by the new migrants.

The Daily Mail, however, focuses on Labour actions – as their Chairman of the Home Affairs select committee, Keith Vaz, waited at Luton airport to welcome migrants landing on the first flight of the morning from Romania, even buying some a coffee and having a chat to ask why they had come… as if that wasn’t patently obvious.

This is Labour at its hypocritical worst.  In one breath extolling the virtues and necessities of EU membership and deeper integration, in the next complaining that British workers are being disadvantaged by cheaper foreign labour afforded the right to come here under EU law.

Similarly, while they want to be seen as standing by the working class they serve so poorly and railing against migration Labour has actively encouraged, they also cynically work to position themselves as the friend of the migrants in the hope of electoral reward in the future.

As always, we should judge these political pygmies not by their words, but by their deeds.  They speak louder than words ever can.

Farage counting cost of being all things to all men for too long

The digital wailing and gnashing of teeth is a sight to behold. It was always only a matter of time before it came to the fore.

Nigel Farage has a track record of masterful inaction and silence when he wants to be all things to all men.  Article 50 is a case in point.  With some in UKIP wisely recognising Article 50 as the only legal process available for commencing Brexit from the EU, and others loudly declaring it to be a vicious trap to be avoided at all costs, Farage stayed silent on the subject for years lest he alienate one of the divergent sections of UKIP supporters.  Eventually he came down on the side of Article 50 in a conference question and answer session, leaving UKIP ‘heavyweights’ like Rodney Atkinson, Torquil Erikson and Professor Tim Congdon on the wrong side of the party’s policy.

But that was an EU related matter and therefore an issue of steadily declining importance in UKIP, which has instead opportunisitically positioned itself to become a rallying point for the disaffected anti immigration/anti asylum constituency as part of Farage’s grand plan to eclipse the BNP by wooing their supporters.  As intended, many former BNP supporters who saw the Nick Griffin bandwagon coming off the tracks saw UKIP, with its own sizeable, vociferous and unchallenged ‘the UK is full, no more migrants or asylum seekers‘ anti immigration rump, as their new natural home.

Certainly, Farage wasn’t saying anything that would alienate them so it seemed the perfect fit .  But what they did not note was that Farage was also saying nothing on the subject to alienate the more rational and realistic members of his party, who recognise that controlled immigration is necessary for a country with an economy like ours and providing asylum to those in fear for their lives is a humane act.  But that has been Farage all over, letting everyone believe he is on their side and in tacit support of their worldview because he was able to stay quiet on anything contentious.  That is they way it remains until silence is no longer an option, or Farage decides there is capital to be made by coming down on one side of the fence.

Over the weekend, calculating a potential advantage that could wrongfoot David Cameron and make UKIP seem more cuddly to potential voters who are otherwise put off by that UKIP faction which wants all immigrants to leave and no more immigrants or asylum seekers – particularly not Muslims – to be admitted, Farage threw one of his legs over the fence and called for the UK to accept refugees from Syria.

Cue the digital equivalent of a collective howl from the small minded little Englanders who had, until that point, believed Farage was in lock-step with them and would pursue a policy of pulling up the drawbridge.  Moderate ‘kippers have been celebrating Farage’s call, as much for the manner in which he has exposed Cameron’s Conservatives as lacking ‘compassion’ as for it being the right thing to do.  However, for the true believers who abandoned the BNP cult for the UKIP cult, some of whom infest the comment threads of the Telegraph and the Mail, Twitter and UKIP’s Facebook page with their obsessive and often illogical rants, the sense of betrayal has been too much to bear as the selection of the comments below shows:


Their reaction is akin to being courted, bedded then dumped just before a big date, after they have spent lots of time being told this is the real thing.  UKIP is going to lose members and gain vocal, bitter critics that were previously sworn brothers in arms.

For this schism Farage has only himself to blame.  He could have avoided getting into bed with these people by making clear what he believed in from the outset.  But his view is why bother alienating people who are in the tank, spreading the word, plastering ‘Vote UKIP’ in every comment thread on news websites and supporting the claim that UKIP is growing and winning new supporters.

Farage might have finally realised that UKIP has a ‘toxic brand’ far worse than the one that causes the Conservatives so much anxiety, but it is one that might now be too embedded for moderate people to ever give the party their support.  That is something for which Farage will have to count the cost.  Sadly for the EUsceptic cause, it is a cost borne there too which adversely affects the likelihood of securing the essential Brexit from the EU.

Cameron’s supposed challenge to free movement in the EU is going nowhere

On the day when much of the world lost all sense of perspective and proportionality, to beatify by acclaim the media constructed legend of Nelson Mandela, the outcome of discussions that directly impact on the lives of Britons – and therefore matters rather more – was quietly released.

Home Affairs ministers from around the bloc have taken note of the European Commission’s communication on ‘the free movement of EU citizens’ and responded to it, making clear that.

The overwhelming majority of member states agreed that the free movement of persons is a core principle of the European Union and a fundamental right of all  EU citizens that should be upheld and promoted. They also agreed that individual cases of abuse have to be combated within the existing legal framework and in cooperation with local authorities in the member states.

Moreover, the Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) circulated a joint statement on this issue (17395/13), considering that the selective  application of core freedoms by member states leads to an erosion of the single market.

This, coupled with the process of qualified majority voting, means Cameron’s attempt at a putsch to dilute one of the European project’s four fundamental freedoms is dead before it even gets out of the gate.

As if to reinforce the point – and provide a timely reminder that many of the worst impacts of mass migration here are the result of the UK government failing to use powers at its disposal – the ministers, whose UK representatives were Chris Grayling and Theresa May, generously suggested actions that should be carried out instead:

In order to help national and local authorities to effectively apply EU free movement rules, the document presents five concrete actions to be implemented together with member states:

– helping member states to fight marriages of convenience (handbook);
– helping authorities to apply EU social security coordination rules (practical guide);
– helping authorities to meet social inclusion challenges (funding);
– exchange of best practices between local authorities;
– training and support of local authorities in applying the EU free movement rules.

From a democracy perspective this is valuable and instructive, as another example of how the EU circumvents national governments and talks directly to local authorities to ensures they deliver what the EU wants at a local level.  This sees to it there is no need to overcome potential resistance from Parliaments.  Westminster will therefore once again be by bypassed as our supreme government talks to the lowest levels of government and hands them their orders – which are enthusiastically followed by pro-EU council officers.

Of course, voters in local elections are never asked if they agree with what their local authorities plan to do on their behalf in respect of dealing with immigration.  They are not even told what measures will be taken or how many tax pounds will be allocated for this work, let alone have any say in what actually happens, or any veto over it.  Despite this people still witter on about this country being a ‘democracy’.

The media will not report this.  The Cameroon sycophants will ignore it, as they ignore everything that challenges their inaccurate beliefs and delusional shibboleths.  Most people will know nothing about it.  Rather than focus on how we are ruled and decisions are made without our consent, time and money is devoted to lauding a man who used violence to help achieve his ends – with one increasingly unhinged commentator even drawing comparisons between Mandela and Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the solution is for people to use social media to start sharing information like this that the media deliberately withholds from the public, and stop simply being used by the media to link to stories it has chosen to cover in pursuit of an agenda that serves interests other than ours.

Daily Express… stupid is as stupid does

When one reads headlines like the one shown here in the Daily Express, it feels like we have been transported into some parallel universe where reality has been inverted, and where stupidity and ignorance are what pass for intelligence.

Such is the level of utter detachment and delusion at the paper that some would be forgiven for thinking of as UKIP’s house journal.  Well, with friends like the Express, UKIP certainly doesn’t need enemies.

As Richard points out on EU Referendum, in the Express and in the Daily Mail (which also claims for itself the credit for this imagined victory) for all the rhetoric, for all the analysis and for all the posturing, it boils down to the message millions of voters will receive: the government is doing something about migrants.  The reality is that the government is doing nothing of substance, because it can’t.

What started as an article in the Financial Times has blossomed into the front pages of the two “middle England” tabloids and dominated the media agenda for over twenty-four hours. Rarely can such a modest investment have yielded such huge dividends.

The odd thing is that David Cameron’s piece did not even enjoy the status of an official announcement. Go to the Government website or No 10 Dowing Street and you will see nothing on migrant policy. And neither, apart from an exchange in PMQs, will you see anything announced in the Commons. Parliament, it seems, is too unimportant to be kept in the loop.

Thus, we have “government by Financial Times“, thereby ensuring that most people will not have read the statement or have had access to the semi-firewalled article. They will be relying for their “take” on what the popular papers (and the BBC) tell them. And the message conveyed is as much as David Cameron could have hoped for.

How on earth do newspapers get away with being considered authoritative and worthy of respect – the prestige factor – and even have High Court Judges fawning over their supposed ‘powerful reputation for accuracy‘ when they present stories like this that are so completely and hopelessly wrong?

To echo Richard, nothing that Cameron has done in respect of immigration control has had the slightest impact on these figures, and nothing he is going to do will impact on levels in the short- or medium-term. But that doesn’t matter. His meaningless waffle and empty rhetoric is sufficient for now, and it will be enough to put UKIP back in its box for a week or so.  And this from the paper the Kippers consider to be their ally.

It’s politics, so perception trumps fact and facts aren’t even checked by the media corps.  They just take at face value what the spin doctors chuck at them and don’t even think to look at the laws or even the previous unkept promises that never materialised.  Then they file their copy, go to the pub and congratulate themselves on being such  important and well connected people with so much prestige.

These idiot journalists, with their fat salaries and with prestige weighed by the tonne, have been well and truly conned – and in turn, through their ignorance and laziness, are spinning a tissue of lies to their readers.  Useless wankers.

Perhaps those people demanding an early in-out referendum on EU membership would do well to stop and think how the media would negatively impact the out campaign when it can swallow government rubbish and get simple issues like this so catastrophically wrong.

This is a little more encouraging, but only a little

In all my criticisms of Nigel Farage and UKIP, I have always made clear that I would prefer to be praising them for pushing the right agenda.  So it’s nice to be able to say that Farage’s op-ed in the Telegraph this evening represents something of an improvement for the UKIP leader.  It’s far from perfect, but it is better than much of what we have seen in recent months.

The major and worrying problem is that Farage is still riding his immigration hobby horse and trying to suggest that leaving the EU is the antidote to this country’s migration issues.  This is disingenuous and risky for EUsceptic credibility because, as has been explained at a superficial level on this blog but in greater detail on EU Referendum, leaving the EU will not resolve our immigration problems.

No one is proposing leaving the Council of Europe (which includes a much wider range of countries that are not in the EU),  and we are still party to conventions and standards of the International Labour Organisation (contrary to the understanding of the UK’s Attorney General).  UK involvement in both of these means even after a Brexit we will still be bound to observing certain conditions on immigration.  This is another example of the global governance agenda that makes the EU little more than ‘Little Europe‘ – a proxy for handing down regulations and directives that the UK has had no opportunity to shape at the global top table where they originate.

Further, because it would be political suicide to attempt to sell to the British people the idea that the UK should not be part of the Single Market now or after Brexit, we would almost certainly have to maintain Single Market access through membership of the EEA – perhaps via EFTA – which would mean we would still be bound by the ‘four freedoms’, which include the freedom of movement and freedom of establishment.  As Richard has explained, this means the UK would be required to permit Bulgarian and Romanian workers to take up residence here in any case.  Farage is only outfoxing himself by not understanding this and shaping his policy accordingly.

But at least Farage has dared once again to reference leaving the EU.  He has at least aligned that imperative with the fact that as EU members we are effectively powerless and cannot change rules that cause this country harm or our people frustration.  He needs to go further in stressing the core issue as being about ‘Who should run Britain‘ and he needs to get off the immigration bandwagon because under scrutiny people will discover his ‘solution’ is nothing of the sort.  It’s a lot more complicated than simply leaving Brussels behind.

Farage’s time would be better spent countering the EuroFUD on economics and dragging the debate and argument to where it should be, on governance.  The whole Brexit issue is about one thing – sovereignty.

The whole EUsceptic side needs to rally around that issue, own it, hammer home the reality continuously to expose and deconstruct the lies of the CBI, Open Europe ad the other proxies for the EUphile side, and make ‘Who should run Britain‘ the defining issue of the campaign.  The current immigration focus may be convenient for Farage to score some easy hits, but it will damage UKIP eventually and that represents a huge risk to the EUsceptic cause; because as Farage clearly has no comprehension of our true situation, it follows that he can have no credible solution either.

Cameron channels his inner Clinton with ‘I feel your pain’ moment. But nothing will change

David Cameron, no doubt a huge fan of of former US President Bill Clinton, has said in response to public unease about the possibility of a large number of Romanians and Bulgarians coming to the UK without restriction from 1st January, ‘I share those concerns’.

Great!  That should do it.  Thanks Dave.

OK, in fairness, there’s more.  Cameron is attempting to construct a legend for himself by giving the impression he is going to reform the EU.  But for Cameron to achieve what he claims he wants, that ‘reform’ would necessitate tearing out the very foundations of the European project, by changing one of the Four Freedoms that underpin the march to ever closer union – namely the freedom of movement of EU citizens within the bloc.

As Richard explains over on EU Referendum, an article in the press today sets Cameron, a committed EUphile, at odds with the central tenets of the EU:

That piece is headed, “Free movement within Europe needs to be less free”, with David Cameron colliding head-on with the most fundamental of all the EU treaty provisions, one that goes right back to the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

With the Mail telling us that Mr Cameron “will today unveil sweeping new restrictions on access to benefits for EU migrants”, we learn that he “will insist that he shares the public’s ‘concerns’ about a renewed wave of migration from Europe”, declaring that “the founding EU principle of ‘free movement’ for workers has gone too far”.

Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall, he writes in the Financial Times, Britain has championed the case for bringing nations which languished behind the Iron Curtain into Nato and the EU.  That is important to their prosperity and security – and ours.

Britain, he says, has also been one of the strongest supporters of a single market. It is in our interests for that it should grow, and for our citizens to have the opportunity to work in other European countries, he adds.

But, he now says, “things have gone wrong”. Since 2004, we have witnessed the biggest migration in Europe outside wartime. In Britain’s case, one million people from central and eastern Europe are now living here.

There is much more in a similar vein that Richard extracts and shares.  But then this leads us to an issue I raised recently where the EU is being blamed for inaction on the part of the UK government.

Where Cameron says he is, “changing the rules so that no one can come to this country and expect to get out of work benefits immediately; we will not pay them for the first three months”, he is only seeking to apply rules that the UK could have applied a long time ago.  Continuing with his theme, Cameron says that:

If after three months an EU national needs benefits”, he adds, “we will no longer pay these indefinitely. They will only be able to claim for a maximum of six months unless they can prove they have a genuine prospect of employment.

But again, this is what other EU member states already do.  Cameron is still constrained by EU law.  Brussels is not going to be the least bit concerned about the UK doing what, for example the Netherlands, already does.  Even where Cameron talks about testing benefit claims by migrants, it has always been the case that if EU nationals are incapable of supporting themselves in another member state, they can be returned home.  The UK has failed to apply such sanctions, something that UKIP has consistently ignored thus missing another open goal for attacking the failings at a UK level of both Labour and the Conservatives.

So there is nothing new under the sun when Cameron says that if people are not here to work, if they are begging or sleeping rough, they will be removed. They will then be barred from re-entry for 12 months, unless they can prove they have a proper reason to be here, such as a job. Those are the existing rules the UK could have long since applied, but failed to.

We have to get through all this nonsense and verbiage before we finally see Cameron get to the heart of this issue, which he has sought to bury as deep as possible in the detail, when he points out what EU Referendum has long explained and this blog has tried to reinforce – that all this is what we can legally do within the limits of the treaties Labour signed up to.

So after a trip around the houses, Cameron brings us back to his ‘reform’ agenda for the EU and that now is the time, he says, for a new settlement which recognises that free movement is a central principle of the EU, but it cannot be a completely unqualified one.

Having pointed out that other countries already see free movement as a qualified right, as the interior ministers from Austria, Germany and the Netherlands have said this to the European Commission, Cameron is actually showing us the EU has not changed its fundamental freedom and that his demands for reform come a long way behind those of other countries.  Quite how the EU can ‘return the concept of free movement to a more sensible basis’ when that freedom was always intended to be absolute and never existed on a more sensible basis, is curious.  But then, this is Cameron and he only has a passing acquaintance with reality.

Clinton felt the pain of an AIDS campaigner and Cameron is sharing the concerns of ordinary people who are paying the price for politicians giving away this country’s independence.  But ultimately nothing changed for the AIDS campaigner and nothing will change for the British people.  Not, that is, unless the UK asserts independence and frees itself from the political construct that has cost us so much for comparatively little benefit.

The EU calls the shots and its bureaucrats will continue to have their own way.  Some countries are frustrated and their people angry.  But that is cancelled out by other countries being delighted at the largesse lavished on them in return for joining the club and extended the control the EU enjoys.

The only solution is for the UK to leave.  But that is something Cameron will never do.  He is the classic empty vessel.  As for his promise to remove jobless EU migrants, we’ve heard it all before

Immigration: How UKIP is missing an open goal

In the Daily Mail was a story that exposes UKIP’s immigration platform as flawed.

For we learn from Bulgaria’s ambassador to the UK,  Konstantin Dimitrov, that not one request from British employers to hire Bulgarian immigrants – where the paperwork was in order – has been refused since 2007.

Given that the restrictions on freedom of movement for Bulgarian nationals to come to the UK have not even lapsed yet, this is more evidence that the EU cannot be blamed for most of the immigration to these shores.  UKIP’s attempt to blame EU membership for the immigration explosion in this country may be music to the ears of many EUsceptics, but it undermines EUsceptic credibility because the reality is very different.

Popular as UKIP’s immigration demonisation focus may be with many of the party faithful, the BNP leaning constituency in the country and a fair number living in multi-ethnic areas, the fact that UKIP lays the blame for our immigration ills at the door of the EU is a fundamental error borne of ignorance, and represents the party missing a huge open goal.  Public anger and frustration, and UKIP’s campaign, should be directed at the real guilty party – the UK government.

Over two-thirds of immigrants to the UK come from non-EU countries.  Much of the immigration is from India and Pakistan, particularly through the rules permitting family members of those already here to come and join them.  Chinese, Africans, South Americans all come here in significant numbers.  This has nothing to do with EU rules and everything to do with global rules and domestic decision making by British politicians.

But UKIP is not attacking the UK government, despite it bearing responsibility for the number of migrants from non-EU countries it allows to stay in the UK, most of the total.  And for years prior to Bulgarians having the right of freedom of movement thoughout the EU, the UK government has allowed thousands of them to settle here.  UKIP could be making mincemeat of Labour and the Conservatives for their record on immigration.  But they are missing an open goal by focusing on EU migration, which even if it was stopped overnight, would reduce by less than a third the number of migrants coming here.

BBC’s omission bias: No, you were not imagining it

With prescient timing only yesterday this blog was highlighting another example of BBC omission bias, as it pointedly refused to identify as Muslim the inmates at Full Sutton prison who beat and stabbed an officer while holding him hostage for more than four hours.  The Daily Wail is giving column inches today to a report into just this behaviour.

When it comes to matters Islamic or immigration related, many people have long argued the BBC’s coverage is outrageously slanted, deliberately taking an editorial line that plays down negatives while heaping focus on any perceived positives.  This bias has now been quantified in a report written by Ed West for the New Culture Forum, which concludes that:

In its coverage of the topic of immigration, the BBC has given overwhelmingly greater weight to pro-migration voices, even though they represent a minority – even elitist – viewpoint. And in its coverage of the economic arguments for and against immigration, it has devoted somewhat more space to pro-migration voices. In terms of the social costs, the BBC has almost totally ignored certain areas.

Sure, there’s nothing new under the sun here, it only confirms what we knew. But it does provide evidence from a detailed analysis of the corporations output that will be impossible to deny.  Let’s see if the BBC, supposedly its own greatest critic, deigns to report about this.

Segregated Britain? The real segregation is this (pt.2)

Prompting the previous post was this piece today in the Daily Mail.

In my view the description ‘white flight’ wrongly ascribes a racial motive for people moving away from areas where ethnic minorities have grown to become a substantial number of people or even a majority.  It is not the race or colour of the skin of people living in an area which is driving this phenomenon.  It is the pronounced cultural differences between members of the community, that have been encouraged and entrenched by the political class as it pursued its own nefarious agenda to dilute and erode the sense of nationhood as part of a wider political agenda.

Although there are plenty of differences within a population that shares the same race, ethnic characteristics, heritage, values and way of life, these were not sufficient to enable the undermining of the nation state, as part of the political objective of developing a world order, where populations that are bound together by their shared similarities and values have strong enough cohesion to reject and resist what the politicians want.

Whenever I have lived overseas I conformed to the norms of the community I became part of.  Many migrants to these shores have done the same thing and where that integration has happened we don’t see this ‘white flight’ phenomenon.  We see relaxed people where aspirations, values and language are the same, resulting in cohesion.

Conversely, where people have come here and transplanted their own cultural norms that are alien to the community, we see a lack of cohesion.  The politicians are to blame for actively seeking and encouraging this.  It comes as no surprise to find the left wing, pro-immigration ‘think tank’ DEMOS claiming that a ‘retreat’ of white Britons from areas where minorities live is limiting cultural integration.  As usual, in a cynical effort to distort the findings and perpetuate the political agenda they have actively been in involved in crafting, they deny the reality which is that the refusal of some migrants to integrate culturally coupled with their desire to create a cultural colony, is actually the cause of increasing segregation.

How many times have we been ordered by the political class to ’embrace’ the changes being forced on the community, with the implicit assertion that failure to do so denotes you as xenophobic or racist?  How many times have we witnessed neighbourhoods become fragmented because these differences are being aggressively entrenched by an arriving migrant minority that demands acceptance of their alien culture being transplanted into the community?  How many times have we seen the arriving migrants seek out people who share their cultural heritage and values so they do not have to integrate or conform to the societal norms of the host community, resulting in the ghetto phenomenon?  How many times, when this has happened, have we then been instructed by the political class to ‘celebrate’ this, despite the lack of consent for the transformation and the unwelcome and undesired impacts this has on the community?  Why is it acceptable for an aggressive cultural supremacy to be implemented by an arriving migrant population, yet any attempt to preserve the cultural norms of the host community is considered wrong and unacceptable?

What has never made stood up to any scrutiny is the notion that migrants want to come here for a better life, when on arrival they do all they can to maintain the same life they supposedly sought to leave behind them in their home country.  It is entirely understandable that people draw the conclusion the new arrivals have not come to enrich our community and become part of what made this country attractive in the first place, as the political class claims, but only to take economic advantage of what has been built up over generations while rejecting our values, language and norms.

The blame for this ‘white flight’ which is so exercising the politicians, and the breakdown in community cohesion which suits their aims, has to be firmly laid at the door of the concept of multiculturalism, advanced by the likes of DEMOS, the Labour party, and legions of politicians across Europe.

Having a multiethnic community is fine and can work wonderfully well.  Often it is integrated migrants who are most vocal alongside us in opposing the contemptible behaviour of the political class as it seeks to dismantle what made this country attractive and proud in the first place.  Where people come together as a community regardless of colour and race we do not see the problems that arise in areas where part of the community chooses to emphasise and reinforce pronounced differences and seeks separation from the host community due to a desire for their imported culture to have supremacy – and seeks to strengthen that separation by bringing more people from their country of origin to build a rival community.

It is not a racial or colour issue, it is to do with culture.  The political class actively pursued this without seeking the consent of the British people.  If I had refused to conform to the cultural norms of my hosts overseas I would not have been welcome and encouraged to leave.  So why is it wrong for Britons to apply the same conditions  and make clear to migrants that if they will not conform to our norms and be part of an integrated community they have no place living here?  Oh yes, because the political class says so, as it doesn’t fit in with their objectives.

Don’t be angry and frustrated with those who have been able to come here and build a rival community steeped in their own culture and values.  Be angry and frustrated with the political class that allowed it, encouraged it, stamped on dissent against it, and sought to stigmatise those who refused to compromise their principles – and take action against them.

The real segregation in this country is that between the political class and bureaucrats, and we ordinary people who they abuse and treat with contempt.

‘Make me the prime minister and I will get you the job’

So said Ed Miliband, to a disgruntled unemployed man in Lancashire whose frustration at the effects of Labour’s open-door immigration led him to say of politicians, ‘You’re all full of shit.’

Miliband told the man that employers undercutting wages – rather than immigration – was the cause of the problem.

This is the Ed Miliband whose supporters never tire of telling us he has a Masters degree in Economics from the LSE.  Yet with that answer he demonstrates that he fails to grasp the most basic impact on price of an increase in supply, in this case a dramatic increase in the supply of unskilled and semi skilled labour.

Businesses exist to make money for their owners in return for the supply of goods or services, and the greatest challenge for most businesses is controlling their costs.

However, the fetish of politicians and bureaucrats for creating ever more regulation, combined with the financial impacts of government policy at EU and national level, the costs associated with running a business have been continually increasing.  So when an opportunity to reduce labour costs – typically one of the biggest expenditures in small and medium businesses – presents itself, why wouldn’t a business hire the migrant worker who is prepared to work for a lower rate?

Miliband supported the influx of hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who increased the supply of cheap labour.  Miliband supported the scandalous borrowing splurge that has resulted in more pressure on tax revenues to service the spirralling debt.  Miliband supported and also directly implemented policies that have increased the costs of running a business.

Yet despite all this, Miliband has the temerity to blame employers for that unemployed Lancastrian being out of work and brazenly promises that if he is made Prime Minister he will get that poor man a job – presumably by further increasing the size of the unproductive public sector, thus further adding to pressure to increase the tax revenues taken from the wealth creating private sector.

That Lancastrian man was then schmoozed and flattered by a deceitful, delusional hypocrite to the point he exchanged a handshake with him.  That man was right the first time.  Miliband and his ilk are full of shit.

Common sense immigration

The Barclay Brother Beano has turned its attention to comments about immigration, in relation to the UK’s economic needs, made by the former chief executive of Autonomy, Mike Lynch.

It is one of those pieces where a journalist has given a platform to a statement of the bloody obvious. Well, obvious to intelligent people outside of our pisspoor excuse for a government in Westminster, led by our supreme government in Brussels.

Setting aside the issues Lynch’s comments raise about the state of education and training in this country, the logic in his comments is clear and unarguable, identifying what is good for our economic and competitive prospects.  However, the reality of our condition sees that the government has clamped down on the opportunities to live and work in the UK for exactly the kind of highly skilled migrants Lynch correctly identifies as being beneficial to our economy and society.

Meanwhile, unskilled labour or marginal value floods here from across the European Union.  Poorly educated – often uneducated – family members of British citizens of south Asian origin are brought here under marriage and family criteria, despite lacking English language ability and frequently having no intention of developing any or integrating into our society and culture, adding little or no value to this country due to the limited scope of what they can do.  And economic migrants posing as asylum seekers among the hundreds of thousands who have arrived here, by-passing safe havens en route, seep into the black economy in low skill, low paid work outside of tax and National Insurance, being exploited by unscrupulous gang masters while making full use of public services paid for by the rest of us, allowed to stay here after publicly funded legal support in appeals.

The government’s approach to dealing with migration is irrational and defies reason.  The tough line being taken with exactly the sort of people this country would benefit from welcoming and hosting is what should be taken with those who are currently being soft soaped and coddled, instead of being shown the door.  It is little wonder our competitiveness is declining while the welfare budget continues to expand, impoverishing this country and wasting the contribution made by the productive workers and wealth creators.

The adoption of the European-style social model is unravelling the fabric of this nation, sowing discord and discontent among the less well off who suffer most from the consequences of the state’s wrong headed approach and saddling this country with liabilities that cannot possibly be funded – eroding the services and provisions millions expected to be able to draw upon after working hard and contributing to the system all their lives.

Until a government grasps the nettle on this subject immigration will remain a devisive issue.  The unfounded resentment of those foreigners who do add value to this country will continue to grow, fuelled by behaviour of those who come here to be net recipients rather than producers.

Government not taking immigration seriously

One of my pet loathings of parliamentarians is the techniques some of them use to avoid answering a question that could cause them embarrassment and stir anger among voters.

The latest example of this can be seen in a written answer to a question asked about the use of the European Convention on Human Rights to avoid legal removal from the UK.

Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportations from the UK did not proceed as a consequence of the application of the provisions of (a) Article 3 and (b) Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in each year since 2005; and if she will make a statement.

Damian Green: In responding to this question, we have assumed ‘deportations’ to mean ‘removals’.

The UK Border Agency does not record this information centrally. Providing a breakdown of specific reasons for removals not to be pursued, either at initial decision stage or following a successful appeal, can only be determined by investigating individual case files which would incur a disproportionate cost.

If this country takes immigration matters seriously then this is exactly the kind of information the Home Office Department should be recording centrally. Perhaps there was a conscious decision made not to record this information centrally because it would highlight the systemic failures within the Home Department and the reveal the true extent of ECHR interference in Britain’s ability to determine who may reside here.

What is also interesting is the call for a statement has been completely ignored. Despite immigration being one of the top three issues for voters at the last election, the government has no interest in upholding our laws, dealing with offenders correctly or being held to account on the subject.

The Labour opposition do not care about this issue. After all, it was they who deliberately opened up this country’s borders in the first place to make the UK more multicultural and diverse.  The Lib Dems want a world without borders run by the UN so they don’t care.  So that leaves the mainstream media, who are now permanently asleep at the wheel and would not look at this issue unless it landed on their desk in the form of a press release; and bloggers increasingly embarrass the media by uncovering such an issue and probing at it until someone prominent adopts it as a problem in need of remedy – at which point the media arrives to present the story as their own exclusive.

Immigration caps, idiocy, and highly skilled workers

Sometimes the sheer stupidity of the political class and the ignorance of the media combines to stoke the anger and frustration of people for whom common sense and intelligence are standard qualities, not optional extras. Here we have the moronic Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition government wanting to appear tough on immigration. But in so doing demonstating their complete lack of suitability to govern, because the rules they have in place fuel unnecessary speculative migration of people without job offers and restrict the migration of people actually sought by employers.

The Observer reports this morning that big businesses are welcoming news from the government that some transfers of highly skilled workers will be excluded from immigration caps:

Just 50 people. That’s how many foreign workers PricewaterhouseCoopers, which employs 18,000 UK staff, will be allowed to bring into Britain this year. And the accountancy firm is not happy.

PwC is not alone. Across the UK, banks, law firms, carmakers and industrial companies have been agitating vigorously about the coalition’s draconian crackdown on the immigration of highly skilled staff.

This week, they thought they glimpsed a chink of light. The home secretary, Theresa May, announced on Friday that certain international transfers of existing employees within companies will be excluded from quotas placed on the number of overseas hires for big businesses. But the Observer has learned that this exemption on “intra-company” visas is likely to be tightly limited…

The government is restricting intra-company staff transfers into the UK and capping the number of migrants companies can offer jobs to under the points-based system Tier 2 (Skilled Worker) criteria, yet continuing to operate the Tier 1 (General) criteria where migrants do not need to have a job offer (only to hold particular qualifications or job titles) to be granted a visa. This is why we see highly skilled workers coming here (or remaining here from the previous Highly Skilled Migrant programme) without a skilled job or income and taking up menial work such as fruit and vegetable picking, waiting at tables and office cleaning.

Migrants coming to the UK under Tier 1 of the points-based system reduce the number of people that can come here under Tier 2 – yet Tier 2 migrants are the very people companies have identified as being beneficial to their operations and adding value to their business. Nowhere in the Observer piece is there any mention of this. Nor is there any mention of the impact this has when unskilled workers from acrosss the EU come here without restriction and find themselves competing not only with British nationals but with Tier 1 highly skilled migrants for casual work.

Not only have we lost control of our borders thanks to EU membership, our government is actually stoking the problem of migrants coming here without any job arrangements by maintaining Tier 1 of the points based system, which results in an oversupply in the labour market. Now let the coalition say again they are serious about reducing immigration. Their claim is fallacious. Thus are we ill served.

Ignore Special Immigration Appeals Commission – remove Abu Hamza’s passport

We’re stuck with him. That is the decision of the morons on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission – it would be more accurately described as the Special Immigration Abettor’s Commission – who say that Abu Hamza al-Masri cannot be stripped of his British passport and therefore deported.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the government to take decisive action to put this right. They will roll over as they always do at the first sound of the words ‘Rights, Directive, Judgement, European’.

Surprise, surprise, it is the Human Rights Act once again that comes leaping to the defence of another lawbreaking alien who hates this country and works actively to do it harm, yet cravenly seeks the protection its liberal laws provide. Despite there being no proof that Egypt has withdrawn Hamza’s citizenship, the Commission has decided it is so and said Hamza must keep the British citizenship he acquired through marriage, or else he would become stateless.

So bloody what?

Perhaps if we showed some guts and acted in our own interests the spiteful hate mongers who come to this country and are determined to attack it at every turn would learn there are consequences for their actions and stay away. This bleeding heart decision is a travesty and exposes how we have been weakened by the community of activists judges and campaigners who pontificate about moral superiority and are loathe to take action against those who mean us harm.

As it is Abu Hamza is still fighting a case in the European Court of Human Rights to prevent deportation to the United States for investigation into alleged terror offences. No doubt the left wing academics who make up that illegitimate kangaroo court will fall over themselves to rule that he must not face justice and must stay in Britain, taking up a prison cell or sponging off the welfare state.

Abu Hamza al-Masri and his ilk will be laughing like drains at the stupidity of these moronic commissioners whose hand wringing further undermines the interests of this nation. The man is Egyptian. His own country despises him and refused him a new passport, but it has never stated that his citizenship has been revoked. We should test it by putting his oversized, taxpayer subsidised arse on a plane to Cairo and permanently refusing him entry to this country again.

If the Egyptians don’t want Hamza, for a few hundred dollars they can strap him into seat on a plane bound for Washington where the Americans are very eager to play host to him. In fact, a phone call to the US Embassy would probably see a transport aircraft divert to Egypt to pick him up and save Egyptian taxpayers the trouble of sending him packing.

Hypocritical little chancer?

Imagine the suprise some people must feel upon discovering Gamu Nhengu, who last week said ‘A firing squad’s waiting for us’ in Zimbabwe, has been visiting the country to take holidays as recently as a couple of years ago.

Now why would someone, supposedly fleeing persecution and claiming to be at risk of death at the hands of the Mugabe regime, present themselves voluntarily in that country? Having returned there unmolested and been able to travel back to the UK at will, it seems clear the claim of Nokuthula Ngazana to be allowed leave to remain in the UK is completely unjustified.

All too often we see economic migrants concoct false stories to con the British immigration authorities. It would be a travesty if following this revelation Mrs Ngazana and her family are granted leave to remain. It would also be a travesty if a single penny of taxpayers’ money finds its way to the well heeled legal team arguing to keep Gamu and her family in the UK.

For all the emotional blackmail and tearjerking sob stories spun to the media, it seems this is just another migrant family weaving a web of lies in an attempt to get around clear visa rules they agreed to. It is time they packed their bags and we wished them farewell.

Britain’s slow self destruction – Binyam Mohamed allowed to live in UK

Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed, a cause célèbre of the BBC because of his story of torture under interrogation, has been granted permanent residency in Britain.

Despite possessing a story about his movements so full of holes a colander is watertight in comparison, and despite trying to return to Britain (where he was already seeking asylum) from an extended trip to the heroin and jihadist training capital of the world (Afghanistan and Pakistan) supposedly in order to get off drugs (stop laughing a the back) he attempted to use a forged passport (although allowed into Britain with his own). Now despite this questionable activity this Ethiopian Islamist has been granted permission to remain permanently in the UK.

But for a tiny molecule of common sense from a judge, we would not even know about this decision as Binyam Mohamed’s legally aided team of lawyers sought an injunction to keep the decision secret from the British public.

What kind of insane desire to self destruct leads a country to give people, who offer nothing but a threat to its citizens, the right to live among them?

Committing a criminal act as serious as using a false passport to enter Britain should have instantly excluded Binyam Mohamed’s existing asylum claim. It raises serious questions about what his intentions were, something that has never been explained. With Afghanistan already being in a state of sustained conflict in 2o02, Mohamed’s reasoning for going there in the first place doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The media focus on his claims of UK complicity in his alleged torture while in US custody has ensured Mohamed’s own actions have largely been ignored.

In just about every civilised country the first responsibility and priority of a government is the protection of its citizens. In Britain the protection of the citizenry comes some way down the priority list. Instead in Britain the slavish adherence to nonsensical human rights laws and the pervasive influence of the sopping wet liberal bleeding heart guilt mongers, who feel they must atone daily for our history of colonialism and further their desire to sweep away national borders, sees decisions such as this handed down on a regular basis.

Make no mistake, these decisions are made by an out of touch elite that can afford to live well insulated from the effects of those decisions. An out of touch elite that views Britain as a small, insignificant country with delusions of power and influence that is crass and insulting to their supposedly enlightened and internationalist worldview.

So it is that Britain continues to self destruct. So it is that the Britain of just two generations ago, where the population was bound by common values and identity, is transformed into a haven for the world’s flotsam and jetsom – many of whom despise our values and have no interest in sharing our identity. So it is that Britain leaves itself wide open to attack from those extremists who seek to speed our destruction, while the authorities sweep away the privacy and rights of the host population.

Such insanity cannot be allowed to continue. But our political class is not interested in addressing these concerns because what matters to us does not matter to them. As such we will continue to be exposed to avoidable risks. So we can expect to see more examples of this insanity as Britain slowly unspools and loses all vestiges of what defined it as a sovereign nation.

Gamu – now the emotional blackmail starts

Any hope that the immigration case of Nokuthula Ngazana – mother of X Factor contestant Gamu Nhengu – would remain a simple visa issue has evaporated with a News of the World article where Gamu pleads:

A firing squad’s waiting for us.

Gamu, photographed in a series of tearful poses, goes on to say that:

“I’ve been in the public eye now and people there know I’ve fled Mugabe’s regime. They will punish us if we go back. They’re going to know where we are.

“We’re going to be very unsafe. People have already been approaching our family members.

“We think they could be working for Mugabe. And we know how brutal he can be. I would be in danger, it’s blatantly obvious. My family would be in danger.”

Those with a careful eye will have already noted in the media the story of how Gamu and her siblings ended up in the UK. There was never any suggestion that Gamu was brought to the UK to flee Mugabe’s regime. The mother went to Scotland on a visa in search of a former lover, took a job as a nurse and undertook a degree, calling for the children to join her. She didn’t come to the UK seeking asylum and when her visa expired she merely asked for leave to remain. Again, there was no application for asylum or indication of any threat to the family. As such the family has no right to remain in the UK.

Today, threatened with repatriation because the request for leave to remain was turned down, Gamu makes her heart-wrenching appeal to be allowed to stay employing the emotive comments noted above. It is emotional blackmail and it is deeply cynical.

No doubt the lawyers acting for the family and the myriad of immigrant support groups who try to circumvent our immigration rules have had a hand in crafting this new approach. But that is the way the game is played now. If ‘Reason A’ fails, change your story and present ‘Reason B’. If that fails, some kindly campaigner will help you generate ‘Reason C’ and assist you in keeping up the pressure until the authorities finally cave in for a quiet life and add to our growing immigrant population.

What is the point of issuing visas to people like Nokuthula Ngazana when they abuse their temporary right to stay and engineer a permanent relocation?

This is not personal, it is just an frustrated call to stop the system being so obviously abused in this way. Cases like these happen every day and this has only been thrust into the public eye because Gamu was a popular contestant in a TV singing show. It would be wrong for the authorities to cave in to such a cynical and manipulative campaign to make an exception and set aside the rules.

Gamu Nhengu’s family has no right to remain in Britain

It is no suprise to see the ‘great unthinking’ and the terminally ignorant serial campaigners who join every passing bandwagon, jumping up and down demanding that Nokuthula Ngazana and her family – including X Factor contestant Gamu Nhengu – be allowed to remain in Britain.

It took nanoseconds for some of these people to start screaming allegations of racism in the treatment of Mrs Ngazana.  It only took a few moments more for the misplaced emotional blackmail attempts to begin, decrying what an injustice it would be to send poor Gamu and her family back to Zimbabwe.  They argue that compassion demands the family be allowed to stay in Britain because of the conditions in Zimbabwe and the fact it has a vile dictator as its head of state.

What is clear is that to these people the facts do not matter.  The fact is Gamu Nhengu’s mother chose to come to Britain to study for a nursing degree and post degree experience in that field. She didn’t come here as a desperate refugee seeking asylum from Mugabe’s despotic rule in a failing country, but on a student visa to undertake an educational course. The terms of the visa were clear, at the end of the alloted time, she would have to return to her home country with her family.

Mrs Ngazana made a conscious decision to study here and by securing the visa knew, understood and agreed that when it expired she would return to Zimbabwe. She knew her family would have to be uprooted and leave behind what they had come to know in their young lives. She had already uprooted them once to bring them to Britain to further her education.

I have no idea who funded the costs of Mrs Ngazana’s study, her living expenses, cost of accomodation and the cost of bringing up her children. What does seem clear from her representatives is that she was advised by the Inland Revenue that she was entitled to claim Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit and that it was aware of her immigration status. This despite the British public repeatedly being told by government ministers that immigrants and those coming here as students are not entitled to benefits funded by the taxpayer. But that is a matter for another time. The issue here is whether a student should be allowed to change their status with no good reason to remain in this country – breaking the terms of the visa that was issued to them.

The matter is clear cut. So it is with simmering anger I learn this morning that solicitors representing Mrs Ngazana (costs being picked up by whom?) are seeking a judicial review (taxpayers funding the cost of defending the case and the court costs) in an attempt to allow the family to remain here, thus undermining the concept of visa terms and bypassing correct immigration processes. The only reason this is happening is that Gamu has a pretty voice and was a popular contestant on a television show created to make its star – Simon Cowell – richer still.

This case sums up the decay in this country of ours. Abandoned values, the blurring of right and wrong, falling respect for the law, failure to follow the rules and the moronic cult of celebrity are combined here to present us with a story for the dumbed down media to milk for all it’s worth.

Had Mrs Ngazana come here seeking protection from persecution – real not imagined – I would have no qualms about allowing her to remain. If she had come here because of the fear of revenge for opposing the Mugabe regime, no problem. But she didn’t. She came here in the knowledge is was on a temporary basis to gain a qualification. That has been achieved and it is time for her to go home. It is time Mrs Ngazana and her new found representatives and bandwagon of hangers on who are already looking for the next bandwagon to hitch themselves to, understood and accepted that and stopped wasting taxpayers’ money in an effort to circumvent the rules she signed up to.

Only in Britain

What never ceases to amaze is just how idiotic people described as learned can be.  The Home Office policy which allows for foreign nationals who have been refused permission to remain in Britain to be deported quickly after the decision, has been struck down by another activist judge, Mr Justice Silber.

So what we have in Britain now is a constraint that makes it illegal to quickly deport people who are have been deemed to be present in this country illegally.

Despite having gone through the immigration process and legal system and having been refused permission to stay, the judiciary is preventing people with no right to remain here from being sent home – in order to provide them with the opportunity to continue fighting against the decision at taxpayer expense, until some other judge decides to give them indefinite leave to remain in this country.

The lawyers make a nice pile of cash, the legal aid budget is stretched to breaking point and someone without grounds to come here as an asylum seeker is allowed to stay regardless.  Just to ensure the game continues to be played in the same way, any discussion about immigration is shut down by a political class that is incapable of anything beyond affording itself more control over our lives and engaging in gesture politics.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: