Tag Archives: Immigration Policy

Britain, Government, Immigration, Politics

Why the contempt for common-sense on migration?

BRITAIN

IN Britain, it has been obvious for decades that this country’s humane and civilised rules on giving asylum to refugees have been grotesquely misused.

Laws designed and crafted to provide safety for persecuted individuals have been exploited by migrants seeking a better life in the UK. Yet, a large part of Britain’s privileged elite refuse to see this.

Not merely do they pretend to think that these migrants are all genuine refugees, and to heap bitter scorn on anyone who argues otherwise, but many of these privileged people keenly engage charities, protests, court cases, and other activities, frustrating any attempt to apply the law.

No doubt many of them are driven by noble motives. It is 170 years since Charles Dickens mocked his character Mrs Jellyby, in Bleak House, for exerting herself very much more about a distant tribe in Africa than in looking after her immediate family.

Let’s be clear. There is nothing wrong with compassion for the poor and for those who suffer in the world. But it should not become an excuse for failing in compassion and endearment to those living closer by.

The arrival in Britain of large numbers of people of whom we know very little has, of course, mostly troubled the poor and weak, who tend to live in the areas where migrants settle. For the more affluent, it is different. Large-scale migration has enabled the metropolitan middle class – for the first time in two generations – to employ domestic servants, though they do not call them that.

Many metropolitan liberals did not like Britain very much as it used to be. They prefer the multicultural nation which is replacing it. But this is only one side of the matter.

The BBC’s partiality, for one, is a point in case. A senior figure at the corporation has again and again given evidence in appeals against the deportation of Somali citizens. In several of the cases, the men being defended had severe and worrying criminal pasts.

Then there was the recent incident in which an “asylum seeker” stands accused of hurling corrosive fluid into the faces of a woman and her children.

The signs are that many well-off liberal minded persons living in ivory towers simply do not get it.

For centuries, those nations lucky enough to have secure physical borders have been careful who they allowed in. Many migrants do bring great benefits such as providing a wealth of talent in key areas. But some bring harm. A society which does not protect itself against this danger is irresponsible and weak and might in the end help to destroy itself. Just as a nation which neglected its defences might do.

The extraordinary revelations of the New Labour functionary Andrew Neather, that the Blair government had “a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the UK Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”, provided the onset for this unholy mess the country now finds itself in. Contempt for the common-sense view of migration is endemic in Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party.

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics, Society

The UK Government needs a clearer policy on migration

IMMIGRATION

Theresa May follows her predecessor by setting a specifically vague target on net migration levels. But how will the targets on immigration be met?

As Theresa May seeks a mandate from the electorate on June 8 to proceed with Brexit negotiations under her own terms, there are certain and specific issues that should be central to her case. Immigration policy is clearly one of them.

But in keeping and in line with much of the Prime Minister’s campaigning so far, the political debate on such issues fall short on substance. Certainly, it’s apt to ask whether Conservatives can agree on what the detail of their immigration policy should be. Yet, when pressed on the matter, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, could only say that the party’s manifesto “will not be identical” to the last two election campaigns. Hardly enlightening given that one of the central tenets prior to the Brexit vote was people’s concerns over migration. Mrs May insists there will be no back-tracking, and the target will be to reduce net immigration to the “tens of thousands”, a policy enshrined previously by David Cameron. If that’s suitably vague to speak in such terms, we must question whether it is credible? In 2016, net migration stood at 273,000, and it is some 20 years since that figure was below 100,000. What interpretation are we to apply when the Prime Minister repeats the mantra of old by insisting that net migration be reduced to the “tens of thousands”? An issue of confidence might yet arise.

In all of this, however, we should be careful of assuming that the EU is to blame for the UK’s high net migration. That would be a mistake. Migration from the EU accounts for less than half of the total figure, at 44 per cent. The other 56 per cent, from the rest of the world, is already within the control of the British government.

A difficult dilemma arises. The suggestion being made is that immigrants who shore up our workforce will be permitted entry if they are important to the economy, such as filling the skills-gap in industries such as health and IT. But those who come here to work account for half of the annual influx. Reducing the immigration figure by enough to get anywhere near the target (whether notional or not) will be tough if an exception is to be made for the majority of migrants.

The government could halt the flow of students into the UK, but by doing so could harm our universities and cut off a supply of skilled workers who could help to drive economic growth if they stay on. Or, the number of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants could also be tackled. The most recent figures, however, show that just over 12,000 people were granted asylum over a 12-month period. Even if all of them were to be removed at a stroke that would make minimal difference to the headline figures.

When published, the Conservative manifesto could yet contain a coherent strategy on immigration. But, on the evidence of recent years, when net migration targets have been repeatedly missed, we are entitled to doubt whatever the document says will be done or if the targets will ever be achieved.

Standard