I've actually been meaning to do a blog on immigration but it can be a contentious subject but here we go.
Obviously first I want to get rid of the past assumptions that people may be expecting from this. I'm not going to go down the Fascist route and start proclaiming "death to all non-whites" or anything like that. Can I remind you that I am a member of the Conservative Party, not the National Front. And if you cast your aspersions aside and actually take what I say at face value you may just agree with me on this issue.
I'm going to write straight from my heart, so obviously allow me to write totally as I see fit from the mind and I won't be trying to avoid the "failed speech" writing style of previous entries of lore. If it comes out that way, get on with it and consider the issue, not how it's presented.
Anyway, how do I start? First I'll quickly outline the issue at hand, give a bit of brief history and end that with a rounded explanation of why the current situation facing our country isn't good. And then I'll do to the best of my ability a solution to some, but not all of the social issues (Mother Teresa or Gandhi I am not.)
Anyway, let's get the ball rolling on this thing.
What's wrong?
With the unlimited everyone-welcome policy that is currently in action with the government now, we get floods of people from all walks of life entering the UK. Their reasons may be different, and their motives also may or may not be honourable, but nevertheless these people can gain relatively easy entry. This presents several issues.
1. Political or Humanitarian Refugees: It is admitted that we can't leave these people in countries or areas where they are persecuted or not looked after properly. A great example is the Kurds of Iraq - I wouldn't have let them be gassed by their own ruler! Anyway, the point raised here is that refugees are usually assumed to be pleased to be in any country as long as it isn't where they are being persecuted or maltreated. Surely then it is somewhat eyebrow-raising that these people make a beeline straight for the UK, and turn their noses up at countries that could easily (and in some cases be more suitable) cater for them. Surely it is easier to just cross one border then traipse across continents. The sad truth is that the welfare system present in the UK is like a lump of cheese to a starving mouse. Pretty bad analogy but its the simple truth
2. EU State Member Citizens: This is pretty much the same as the political refugees. Times are tough in their home nations, so these people head for Britain to make a new life. Yeah, some pay their way and work. Some do not and live off the taxpayer. Surely this is wrong and immoral, and not to mention selfish on the parts of the asylum seekers.
 |
3. Ghettoization: The grand idea back in the 1950s was that open borders would encourage people off all creeds to come to Britain to be a part of our culture. But this hasn't really happened, or has been horribly skewed. It's clear that some parts of the country (Bradford, to name but one example) are dominated by one minority group and that this leaves the (forgive the word) indigenous people at a disadvantage. This can be due to job losses or unavailability of services. And this is very bad, because it leads to number 4...
4: Racial Tension and Resentment: This idea of having separate communities without integration is very bad. I could say that this extends to the idea of faith schools, but I'm not really very well versed on that so I'll leave it alone. To make clear the problem the ghettos create, I'll put it simply: people do not learn to get along or accept those with differing beliefs and cultures. This is a prime breeding ground for racial resentment - may we call up the Bradford riots here? And for schools in general; if children from an early age do not mingle and mix with other people of different backgrounds then the idea that "there are no differing opinions" is set in early and makes getting these people to integrate or not look down on other people, whether this is right or wrong, is much harder, and for the well advanced people set in their views this can be impossible.
5: Public Service Meltdown: The problem with unrestricted immigration is that public services can easily be swamped in areas where new citizens flock to, or are so oversubscribed that levels of service drop. Plus you do get an addition to racial tension through this as people who had been in the area before can easily think that "all these immigrants get priority", whether its appropriate or not. And in some cases it is appropriate as we cannot leave people to live on the streets.
What Isn't Wrong
I have no problem with skilled immigrants (or, as an afterthought, even unskilled labourers etc) emigrating to Britain, settling in mixed communities; though majority communities can be alright in this case and working legally and paying taxes! That's good because then they have the same rights as indigenous folk as they contribute toward the public services and utilities they require, which some folk who utilise our lax benefit system do not do. That's good! And if we have a skills shortage then this is a good solution.
A Possible Solution
So how do I propose to solve this problem? Well, four ideas I think working together in conjunction would put an end to the problem. These are:
1: Controlled Immigration Quotas: Maybe the time is right to limit immigration to a set number so we can build sufficient public services to keep up with a reasonable increase of the migrant population. Remember, hospitals, schools and water works are not built overnight and we need to make sure that as people come into the country we can provide them with the top-notch services they expect from a industrialized nation such as ours. Remember, Enoch Powell touched on this in 1968. He was no “racist” as all the sensationalist left-wingers liked to claim. He had no problem with any particular sect of the immigration population, just that open-door borders would cause the public service meltdown and lack of social cohesion that is sadly apparent now.
Maybe an alternative is the Australian system…
2: Professional Immigration Filtering: The idea is in Australia that only skilled people that are in short supply are allowed entry. Maybe this could work in the UK, though it could be seen as discrimination. I personally have no objection to the Italian honour student or the Polish builders coming across and working legally and paying taxes honestly and truthfully.
 |
3: Integrationalist Housing Policy: If we had controlled immigration, then this should certainly go part and parcel with making sure people integrate with other culture types in their community. It would work like so: Family A would apply to live in a particular region or county, and they would be housed alongside others of their same ethnic background, but these would be allocated in a way that does not lead to ghettoization. You would not have more then a certain percentage of one immigrant population in a certain area. Sure, this conflicts with the premise of buying a house where you like, but there is flexibility of getting to specify your county. I think an integrationalist, everyone-knowing-each other society is much more important.
4: Education Education Education: We also need to get rid of single-faith schools. They’re dangerous, I think, as they do not give the children a chance to see what other people’s beliefs may be and learn from an early age to respect and tolerate them, even if they differ from those that are held. If a child grows up thinking only their religion or culture matters, or has no experience in dealing with those who think differently, then superiority complexes come about. So get rid of them. And for those in mixed-faith schools, make sure that these children get adequate knowledge and understanding of what others think, and by god instil it from an early age in their minds that just because it is a different way of thinking to you doesn’t make it wrong, unless we want our children growing up as Daleks.
Anyway, that’s it! My solutions. Obviously this is a contentious issue and some people may be offended, and I do mean no offence in what I say. I have not pigeon-holed any one racial group (I hope) so don’t take it personally. But what I do hope to have done is provoke another debate a bit like the drugs one. I look forward to seeing what people say on this.
You've completely failed to address the biggest problem you raised here: how do you tell the people who are going to "work legally and pay taxes honestly and truthfully" from those who are going to "live off the taxpayer", and prevent the latter from entering the country?
ReplyDeleteIt would follow that the former group are more likely to integrate too; thereby removing the need for forced allocation of housing.
The blog style is definately improving, but this needs to be condensed. It was far too much of a chore to read.
ReplyDeleteIn your solutions sections, actually give a solution instead of a single step answer.
Nice to see that your views have doubled since you started to tag the blog, thank me when you want too =D
As for your points:
Education was good, but really is more related to the cause of racial tension. But slightly caused by The Sun's stories of ten thousand Islamic-refugee-suicide bombers arriving everyday. All living on benefits of course.
Immigration quotas too mantain an inflow in check with availability of accomodation and employment. Would like to see how you decide who gets a placement.
'Ghettoization' and Integrationalist Housing Policy' were a load of bollocks and let you down. It seemed as if you were more concerned with the idea of hordes of dark skinned people congrugating in residential areas than the consequences of immigration, as far as I know Bradistan is developing quite nicely.
bloody immigrants
ReplyDeleteHello.
ReplyDeleteFor a start, our country does not have an 'unlimited everyone-welcome policy'. Legal immigrants from outside of the EU need VISAs, to start with, and all sorts of other paperwork to even get into the country, let alone live and work here.
Illegal immigrants are only illegal because of the means they use to get here. The reason they get in is that the security on transport into the country is not good enough. Also, the countries they travel here from would rather that the immigrants were our problem and not theirs. For example, it is well known that the illegal immigrants found hiding in vehicles in the ports in Calais are often aided by the local police.
Secondly, regarding the EU immigrants, the idea that they 'live off the taxpayer' is absurd. Just because it is easier to become a resident in a fellow EU state does not mean that it is any easier for them to get away with not working. In fact, because they immigrate here by legal means, they are more closely observed than those who have evaded the arms of the law. In other words, the government can keep track of people they know are here. Where is your evidence that many European citizens live like this within our country? What if we were to move to their countries, do you think that it is possible that our lives would not be regulated by their governments? I do not.
Also, the idea that 'immigrants are stealing our jobs' (to quote the general consensus of the population, it seems, not your words exactly) is, again, ridiculous. Our economy relies on them. Not enough British people particularly want a career in cleaning, for example, for that industry to be sustained. We need people who are prepared to do those jobs. Also, why should they not work here? Again, to reverse the situation. Say a British builder were to move to (taking the cliché here) Poland. He would actually work in a fairly senior position, one would assume. So why then should a Polish builder be second to an English one? As it happens, in most cases, Polish builders produce higher quality work, quicker, and for less money. They are offering a better service. If immigrants offer better service, who can criticize them? It is the fault of the British builders, surely, for not having competitive standards and rates.
My overall point so far is that there is no reason that immigrants should have less rights than citizens, in any country, if they are law abiding. Certainly, they should not have priority, but this is never the case, contrary to popular belief. I ask you to give me one example if which they do.
You have failed to realise that the problem is not the immigrants, but the attitudes of the British people. Where the negativity comes from, I am not sure, though I do assume that a lot of it must span from the racist attitudes (or even racial fear, a concept that I think is underestimated). I do not honestly believe that most racist people are aware that they are racist, either. Who can blame the ignorant, right? When you can't blame the ignorant citizens, blame the government. It is my belief that the government should be doing more to educate people on this issue properly. Your solution number 4, I must say, is quite admirable.
Thank you.
Directed at Orbit.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly are on the wrong blog page, this place is where naive political thinkers make assumptions without considering the effects on the economy.
Kudos.
Anonymous: Thanks. Though he makes some reasonable points, I didn't point that out because I felt they didn't need reiterating.
ReplyDeleteGreat comment, Orbit. I’ll methodically answer your points.
ReplyDeleteI agree that in essence there are tight controls on immigration, but if we have lax border control, what’s the point? And I have recently seen on televised news how easy it seems to be able to get faked documents on the black market – to combat this is twofold: first, a border protection squad with some bite and secondly less fakeable documentation. Sure this raises the whole ID cards debate, but that is a different debate for a different day.
I also think that the attitudes you highlighted by foreign nations forces of “let the Brits have it” is seriously wrong. I find that quite an immature and lazy way of an Western nation to deal with the problem. I don’t know the ideal solution, but why not use the EU to force these countries to not practise this thing. Of course that again leads to another separate debate of some contention of how far the EU should intervene in a country’s sovereign customs and governmental procedure.
The reason I used the image of migrants “living off the state” is quite easy to explain. The media in this country loves to exaggerate this image, and I don’t profess to be an expert on all of these subjects of immigration and migrant policy. I can only make a judgment from my own perspective and what I see. But you raise a good point that these people are more closely monitored, but we need to reform the welfare system so it is less easy to defraud – and this is widespread. Benefit fraud is the worst kind of sin I think, as it deprives those who do need the support of what they deserve and does not help our nation economically in times of need. I think we need to adopt the Conservative idea of “good housekeeping” and get rid of governmental waste and benefit fraud, and overly streamline government so we can get the same (if not better) service for less cost to the taxpayer.
This really goes for immigrants who “steal jobs”. Maybe we need to review how the media (even the “impartial” BBC) portrays this. And to be honest, it is what people on the streets commonly say about immigration. Surely there is no smoke without fire? Agreed the economy relies on them – and its good that they are doing this legally. And yeah, we need to address the British attitude – especially with young people who seem to turn their noses up at work when it is clearly cutting their noses to spite their faces. Money is money! And competition is good for capitalist society, so if the Polish can do it better (most important legally) then I see no reason for them not to. Maybe the argument of “taking our jobs” is just a quick way out when in truth people are just too lazy to put the work in.
I totally agree that immigrants, when law abiding, should not be looked down upon. These are the sort of immigrants I have no objection to – those who work, pay tax and live legally. Maybe the whole “integration” thing is a bit old-fashioned but its a social problem that will need to be addressed. But let’s first get a good solid network of support for these people who wish to work as others do legally and honestly and work to get rid of those who wish to take our system for a ride. It is a difficult thing to balance, who gets preference, the immigrant or the “native”, so why not just treat everyone as the same and not care If they have emigrated or not. Naturally “political asylum” cases will need careful consideration but the system should be able to make allowances, but not to such an extent as to either alienate “normal” immigrants or indigenous Britons.
Fear is the greatest problem that leads to violence and its why I think it is important to tackle it. My belief is that education (ie: prevention) is better for these social problems then “crackdowns” (punishment). It is like bolting the door after the horse has bolted and its good you agree. We need a strict code of “what is racist” but we then need to balance this against “political correctness gone mad”. Another tricky step I don’t have a full solution to.
Thank you for your interest and opinion.
Here's a question.. how would you suggest your ideas should be carried out? Certainly, the idea of 'less fakeable documentation' as you put it, would be ideal. However, realistically, how are you going to achieve this? The fraud industry will always catch up with you. For example, on the mainland, the number of forged Euro notes is supposedly rising by 15% each month.
ReplyDeleteYou wish to 'get rid of benefit fraud'? Don't we all? What exactly are you proposing? Perhaps it would be wise to include this..
And a border protection squad? That's madness, of course we have border control in place already. Do you honestly think the government isn't already doing everything it can afford?
Sure, the attitudes of France and other neighbours regarding this issue are not helping in any respect, yet what point are you making in saying they are 'seriously wrong'? I was not endorsing their treatment of criminals. I just don't understand what you're trying to convey here.
Also, no offense, but you can't argue an issue when you openly admit that your views are only based on personal experience. Surely if the leaders of our country only did things to benefit themselves (i.e. the rich) we would end up with more of a divide between the rich and the poor, yes? No party would have policies endorsing this, surely. Oh, wait, that would be the Conservatives. I don't know what kind of area you live in, but no one person could base the effects of immigrants on the entire country by merely looking at their home town.
'Good housekeeping'? Cameron's idea that we should stop spending so much on our daily lives, so that money can be spent on the army, and prisons? This seems like a reasonable idea if you believe we need to spend yet more of the budget on national security, but he is proposing that this will be possible without raising taxes.
As for the issue of people's attitudes, I do not believe we do need a strict code telling us what is racist. Of course, there are always going to be people living in this country who think that it is right to judge and segregate people by race. That is their business, I am not condemning their beliefs, though I completely disagree with them. We must be careful not to judge people by their beliefs, even if they are looked down upon by society. We must teach youth to be open to different ideas, and to understand each other. Education is key!