Leading article: The immigration debate we need
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, suggests in an interview with this newspaper today that the Government has "shied away" from the debate about immigration. In fact ministers have often seemed to talk about little else over the past decade. It may be that this debate has often resembled a dialogue of the deaf, but it seems bizarre to imply that it has somehow been brushed under the carpet of public life.
However, the Home Secretary is correct when he suggests the Government would be a more credible participant in the discussion if it did a better job of emphasising the benefits that immigration brings to Britain. How often do we hear ministers heralding the crucial role migrants play in the National Health Service, or in looking after the elderly in our care homes? They should also do more to debunk the popular myths about the supposedly preferential treatment of migrants in the welfare system.
It is still widely asserted, for instance, that new migrants jump the queue for social housing despite the fact that only 1.8 per cent of social tenants have moved to the country in the past five years. Gordon Brown even bolstered this myth when he announced plans in June to allow councils to "give more priority to local people". If Mr Johnson wants a more honest debate he might start by apprising the Prime Minister of the facts.
There are plenty of other sensible points that ministers ought to be making. They should point out that tens of thousands of migrant workers from Central and Eastern Europe have left Britain since the recession hit; an illustration of the reality that substantial inflows of foreign labour throughout our history have been driven by strong economic growth.
Yet if Mr Johnson seeks to make immigration into an election issue, he needs to tread with caution. It is all too easy for careless politicians to stoke popular anti-immigrant sentiment at a time of economic hardship.
An honest debate in which the costs and benefits of migration are analysed would indeed be a relief. But the last thing the country needs is a continuation of the grotesque bidding war between politicians of all stripes over who can sound "tougher" towards immigrants.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Do I Really want to Eat That ? Fruit and Vegetable PLU Codes
Breast Exercises For Women --Breast Firming exercises to make your breast look bigger
?1-- Push-ups
?2-- Back extension and strengthening
?3-- Bench press some weights
More Simple Exercises to Tone and Push Up Your Breasts:
--The Fastest Thing You Can Do To Increase Your Breast Size
--How You Can Get Firmer Breast Using Board Games
--How To Make Your Breast Bigger Without Implants and Wonder Bras
Firstly it only relates to those in the country for less 5 years. Since the average waiting list for social housing is more than five years it follows that anyone whose has been housed in less than five years has jumped the queue.
Secondly the turnover of social housing is about 5% per year. If 1.8% of that 5% is made up new comers to this country that represent more than a third of new lets.
Far from disproving the claim that immigrants get preferential treatment the 1.8% figure actually confirms it.
Preferential housing, loss of jobs, demand on services - all these are real and genuine. The economic benefits are almost always grossly exaggerated. Yet even these are not the primary concern of most people who want major controls on immigration - the primary issue is cultural.
Until the government is ready to explicitly abandon the dishonest policy of multiculturalism, in favour of a policy of required integration (subject to long - say, ten year - periods of provisional right of residence), complete cessation of all public spending on translation other than for Foreign Office, diplomatic or academic purposes (e.g. no more official forms, voting papers, etc, in languages other than English), and an utter barring of State funding for muslim schools, most of us will wish to see immigration cease. And that includes family, other than one spouse and children under 16, of those who are selected (and selected, after cash-bond sponsorship, on grounds of assessed value to the community).
Labour is finished. Time for a major change. And if the Tories will not bring it about, the BNP will probably gain even more support.
People trafficking is big business for criminals, and this is a big part of the problem. Governments need to cooperate to combat this modern form of slave trading. How else do poor and ignorant people get transported thousands of miles with such apparent ease?
But those who say that immigration has positive effects are also right. The exchange of skills between nations is vitally important. Merely shutting the door when supposed quotas have been filled is not a practical solution. Applications to come to Britain must be decided by clear and logical rules.
This issue is an emotive one. And, yes, the motivation in some cases is racist. Despite protestations to the contrary, the BNP is a racist party. They are part of the problem not the solution. This is indeed a complex issue with no easy or neat solutions. A debate would be most welcome.
1.) No immigration without 10,000 quid backed bond from a sponsor.
2.) The immigrant must speak english.
3.) The immigrants family (one spouse only) must speak or learn english, and if this is not accomplished in 5 years, they lose residenncy. Any government legal costs will be met in part by the bond.
All of this will also require the repatriation of all legal powers to the UK, to take EC judges out of the picture, and potentially changes in the law to limit the endless and crass (legally aided) appeals by Liberty et al.
First move is to remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights so that at least British Judges can decide whether an "Asylum Claim" is genuine and if so, they should have 'leave' to stay, if not be immediately deported without appeal.
The real problem is that this Government has allowed unbridled immigration as a means of keeping wages and inflation low and this is incorrect. It is mainly incorrect in the sense that it does not present the UK population with the "real cost" of 'being too busy' to look after say, your Parent suffering from Dementia so, they go into a "Care Home" staffed entirely by immigrants.
Let us be honest here, if they (dubious immigrants and asylum seekers ), just see old people 'dumped' by theirown 50 year old kids, their own parents, just why the Sam Hill should they care more for your 'Parent' than you do ? In the general sense, what impact might this have on British Society ?
It is a complex issue but little different from buying iPhones manufactured in China, we use the toys but they get the pollution of manufacturing the damn things. They produce the 'surplus population' in the Far East, we get cheap labour... Didn't they do something similar in Ancient Rome except they were called "Slaves" rather than "Economic Migrants".
Isn't this just pure Bull Shit, isn't it time that rather than our own personal convenience we looked at human dignity and the right to a spiritual dimension for people born in far tougher parts of this World ?
I do not object to genuine refugees being given asylum, they should but it is wrong that desperate people, economic refugees trying to make their way to the UK, don't have an understanding that 'Fair is Fair' but 'Taking the Hiss' is stupid, it will end on a flight home in handcuffs, rapidly as within 24 hours. If it is a 'game', why don't we publish the 'rules' ?
I think that it only pretended to listen don't you?
After years of such obvious dishonesty (or 'shying away' as a shyster would say) by New Labour Johnson, the new Tuff Guy at the Home Office, wants to start a debate. Unfortunately for him and New Labour the prima facie evidence of the failure of its multi-cultural, utopian no-door immigration policy is the rise (albeit limited) of the BNP, a party as distasteful as New Labour has been negligent.
And given the evidence of documents that have surfaced over the last few days does Johnson really want to let the daylight into New Labours ulterior motives for allowing mass uncontrolled immigration?
The top echelon of New Labour doesn't like the non-metropolitan Briton very much. We are too white, we eat and drink the wrong things, we abuse our children, we destroy the environment and we are racist.
Is it any wonder that there is such widespread hatred for New Labour after 12 years of stigmatising its own electorate?
ps. And for the record I have always voted Labour and the last time I did that was in '97. Since then I haven't voted at all.
Once we get slightly above that level of debate, we might have a proper one.
You trot out the tired old nonsense about the contribution that immigrants have made to the NHS.
Only simpletons argue that because a sizeable proportion of people in industry X are from social or ethnic group Y, that therefore industry X couldn’t function with “Y people”.
To illustrate, about 95% of people in the construction industry are male. Which proves what? That women can’t become architects, plumbers, etc? Having been in the construction industry for thirty years, I can assure you that if three quarters of males in the UK dropped dead because of some strange “male only” disease, women would be able to run the construction industry, no problem (after the right amount of training).
Likewise, if all immigrants, first, second and third generation went home, over a period of years. The assuming the right amount of re-training took place during those years, native Brits would have no problem staffing the NHS – just like they did in the early 1950s.
Today's population will grow old and need support. For the sake of argument, let us say that it takes two under 65s to support one over 65.
100 Overs need 200 Unders. Total 300.
When today's Unders are Overs it will take 400 Unders to support them. Total 600.
When those Unders are Overs it will take 800 Unders. Total 1200.
And so on ...
We have to produce many fewer babies as from now, allowing a natural decline in population, and not accept any increase in population by any other means. And yes, that will mean for a generation or two accepting a decline in living standards for all, until an optimum population is reached.
If each country adopted such a policy (and enabled access to birth control to those those millions of women who currently produce babies they don't want) then together we could preserve the world in all its environmental glory.
I'll pick up a rifle - in the forces or as a guerilla fighter - before being subject to sharia law. That's not racism.
The argument about sharia is total garbage. The "Christians" in the UK have nothing to worry about from Islam, which will never dominant British culture. It is the Christians themselves who are abandoning their religion.
A) I bet they haven't a clue
B) I bet we are still paying them
SENSIBLE levels of immigration are only justified if there are numerical limits, strong border controls and efficient administration of tax/welfare policies - we have none of these.
I didn't hear the recent revelation, but it has been common knowledge in some sectors for a long, long time. I have known about it for several years (and I'm retired, and living in France!!!). Indeed I posted the facts on a BBC website several years ago.
Problem is that the Government never admit to anything until they are caught red handed, with their draws down, snouts in the trough, fingers in the till, so to speak.
Was there ever a time when resignations would follow revelations? PLEASE, tell me there was!
1) Numbers details
2) what decisions have been made by whom
3) what is the policy
the debate will flow from tyhat it is for the government ( our paid servants ) to tell us what to discuss
they must tell us what they have done and why
what their policy is / are
Personally I welcome imigration and the diversity and economic benifits that it brings, but even I am uncomfortable about the scale of imigration we have seen in recent years.
1. We never hear any complaints about " british" citizens emigrating abroad and the British, in general, take it for granted that it is okay for them to emigrate abroad to Australia, Spain, France, US etc. and it is their god given right to do so. Rather hypocritical.
2. Where are the complaints about immigrants into the UK from Australia, New Zealand and I understand from a recent press report that the Australians and New Zealanders are the worst offenders in overstaying in the UK after their visas have expired.
3. Why do the English complain so much about losing their jobs to " foreigners". I thought the UK labour market was completely free and open and anyone can apply for any job. If someone wants to work harder and for less money, provided it is within labour regulations, what is unfair about that. If all available jobs could be filled by the "english" and "english" people would be prepared to fill them,we would not have such immigrants. God forbid if we had a closed labour market open only to certain sectors of the population and controlled by militant labour unions. The cost of living would soar and the standard of service and life would plummet. Anyone wanting this should go and live in a communist country.
4. Most migrants to the UK have undergone severe hardship to get here and want to better themselves and usually work damn hard because they have lived in countries where there is no justice and no safety net if they cannot get work. Most of them contribute a great deal in many ways to making the UK a better place and do many of the jobs that the English do not want to do.
5. What is it in the British psyche that makes so many of them so anti immigrants when in the US which has been built on waves of immigration, this does not seem to be such a problem. Is it because the Americans value hard work and achievement and the strive to do one's best in life and it is immaterial where you come from whereas the English have been too mollycoddled by the State and resent immigrants coming in who show them up as the immigrants are prepared to work harder and take up any position, however, menial. The English disposition would seem to be based on envy and wanting to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. It would appear that many English want to reach the top of the tree without working hard to get there and are not prepared to start at the bottom and work their way up - look at the ridiculous titles given to menial jobs to hide the job status.It is not difficult to find in many walks of service life, like restaurants or retailers, for instance, where the service given by a " foreigner" is far superior to that given by an " english" worker.
6. How many so called " English" can genuinely say they are not descended from immigrant stock so let us not be so hypocritical.
I think we learnt all we needed to about Labour's stance on immigration on the recent Question Time 'BNP special'. Straw came across as stilted, rehearsed and pathetically scripted, like the whole show.
The growing tide of fascism is a reaction to what people see around them, and the changes and concessions being made for a burgeoning multicultural society. The BNP is an ugly symptom, I don’t believe it is generating hate per se. I believe the vast majority in this country are not racist, but many are against the erosion of British culture and values. For example, councils banning xmas and rebranding as a festival of light; the other week I read about a blind man and his guide dog were harried off a Reading bus due to the hysterical reaction of a muslim mother and her child on sight of his dog (this is the second time this has happened to him); maternity wards have closed (Ascot) and been relocated (Slough) due to the overwhelming demand of immigrants in other areas; over population and the concreting over of what little green space we have - which is required if we to be in anyway self sufficient, rather than net importers...
No one of sound mind should object or discriminate (whether negatively or positively) on colour or creed, but what I believe is eating at many is the loss of our own culture. We should accept, grow, assimilate and integrate, but not lose our own identity in the process. This is what should be addressed if we hope to tackle fascism.
The liberal intellectuals haughty dismissal any such augments is not helpful and is precisely way the BNP has found a foothold...
It's embarrassing.
The Indie is a card-carrying cheer-leader for globalised 'free' (!) markets, and therefore either does not understand, or does not care about, the gradual commodification of human beings in the pursuit of profit.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/th
Under this, er, utopia, the norm is 'precarious' and 'commodified' citizenship in which the downward pressure on wages and social benefits is integral to the pursuit of profit.
Migrants play a key role in applying such pressures, but are just as much victims of neoliberalism as everyone else, since it is the application of these forces in their own communities which has driven them to seek work far from home.
It's not quite as wicked as Hitler's attempted Nazification of Europe, but it's making 'progress'.
Was astonishes me about The Indie is that it offers full support to combatting global warming, whilst failing totally to see the inextricable links between globalised consumerism and its addiction to growth, on the one hand, and the increase in co2 emissions on the other.
LOL? Too serious for that!
There is a relentless noise from the self-appointed "elites" that would equate any concern over immigration's effects with racism and xenophobia.
The Independent, like the Labour Party, is careless and dishonest on this subject.
With 2.3 million immigrants coming to "Britain" since 1991 and 9 out 10 of them preferring England, it's England that's being changed beyond all recognition. Without any form of consultation or consent.
With Leicester and Birmingham and other cities approaching the point where the white English are now the minority (has London already passed that point) immigration needs to stop completely.
And that of course is just the legal documented migrants - what about the illegal immigrants in England? How many? 100,000? 500,000? A million? Three million? Will the immigration debate include talk of the illegal immigrants here? Somehow I doubt it.
Don't give me the skills shortage as an excuse either. If there are skill shortages - train the people already here rather than bringing foreigners in - we have no shortage of unskilled wasters that could be doing something useful.
We have continued the tradition throughout. There are many cultures living amongst us that have been with us for centuries, integrating, practicing their own religions, and adding to the quality of life here. Many of the common wealth fought and died in WW2. Perhaps this is why Aussies and New Zealanders and other commonwealth are not complained about so readily. They have a history of going through good times and bad times with us.
Concerns are raised when our own way of life is being judged as 'offensive' in our own country.
When the word 'Christmas' becomes offensive, when there are honour killings of english born young women, 'no go' areas in our cities. These things are alien to the older generation, who are then tempted to vote BNP, as they remember being able to walk around anywhere any time without fear, and hope that stopping new comers may help get the status quo back. Proud that their grandmothers campaigned and got votes/rights for women.
Sadly, our country is now judged by its leaders, corrupt, greedy and uncaring, who will sell the inhabitants living here down the river for a bit of power and a feathered nest.
"The English first started to be tolerant in the times of Elizabeth I, when it was decreed that Catholics were allowed to live in peace here."
I would not be so unkind but phrases such as "Get a Life, Grow Up and Read Your Own History", do rather come to mind.
Our Country is not judged by it's 'Leaders' corrupt or not, it is judged by the quality of its people, their spirit, courage and awareness of surrounding 'events'. Ever considered living in Portugal or perhaps some very small Greek Island ?
Hostility to Catholics reached down to our own times, as I found out when I married one!
No. 2. - Australians and New zealanders were originally from UK to start with, most can probably trace ancestry back to here. They fought and died in both world wars by our sides.
No. 3 - Our unions spent 100 years campaigning since victorian times to provide a decent standard of living for the british working man, not to have it undermined by cheap foreign labour
No. 4- People have no problem with immigrants coming here for our better life. However, if it is better, why are they then trying to have our laws changed to comply with the laws from whence they came? or why do they persist in leading exactly the same life as they had abroad?
No. 5 - The US aren't taxed the the effing hilt to provide the benefits that our governments love to pay out to just about everyone and their wife. In america if you work hard you get rich, in UK if you work hard you get taxed. Bit of a stupid comparison.
No. 6 - Agreed, but we did oust the vikings, romans and normans eventually :-) ... I know its a thousand years old but the saying was 'William may have ruled us, but he never managed to conquer us'. And actually I think the Romans just sodded off.
re: number 4, I presume you've also going around British expat communities in Spain etc, demanding that they properly assimilate, and give up British traditions/way of life, otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.
re: number 6. You've left out the Angles from your list of supposedly vanquished immigrants'/invaders. Possibly because they weren't and actually resulted in a large part of Britain being called a different name, England. The Normans, well, due to the relative efficiency of the Anglo Saxon state they were able to simply remove the top layer of nobles/aristocracy and put themselves in it's place. Who ever said 'William may have ruled us, but he never managed to conquer us' is clearly an idiot in want of an education as they both conquered us and ruled us.
The public never hears my story as well as the stories of thousands of other students/professionals like myself who are working hard here, not interested in claiming a dime from the public pocket and face constant hostility in the media and everywhere we go as we are now called “Immigrants” When you say the word immigrant to the average british, I bet you the first thing that comes to mind is some dude trying to sneak into the UK in a lorry at Calais. The UK is no longer an attractive place to work because of lack of transparency of the immigration system. We need to have an open debate on immigration now more than ever.
This is presumably a reference to the late-lamented Brown bubble, in which bankers and consumers racked-up shed-loads of debt while economic illiterates at the Indie bathed in reflected glory taking the view that the light shone out of the former Chancellor's rear orifice.
The Wall Street Journal put this nonsense in perpective:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1245009
We will never have an "honest debate" about immigration until politicians such as Alan Johnson and newspapers such as The Independent acknowledge the huge negative impact that immigration has on our environment. All they ever want to "debate" are the economic consequences and, with some reluctance, the cultural and social consequences, which are all very ambiguous, subjective and, in the case of the first, short-term. However, human overpopulation is the main cause of environmental destruction, and this country is already grossly overpopulated - the third most densely populated island in the world. At present, immigration is the main driving force behind population increase in this country (as confirmed by recently released official statistics). Using immigration as a short-term solution for labour shortages is blatantly unsustainable - it stokes a vicious circle of escalating overcrowding, infrastructure overloading, environmental degradation and resource depletion.
The UK is increasingly reliant on imported food and energy, water shortages exist in parts of the country, open countryside is vanishing under new housing, and our environment is increasingly degraded. To allow further population growth in the UK is sheer madness, therefore virtually all immigration into this country should be stopped. This is not a racial issue - it is simply irresponsible to allow our population size to get even larger.