Clandestines – A Rebuttal

Jonny,

I read your blogpost "Clandestines" with great interest and I here offer my opinions in relation to what you wrote.

The idea of demolishing the Jungle was short-sighted; the displaced immigrants did not simply give up and go home (which is the ideal but completely cuckoo-land solution or outcome) but just moved elsewhere in the city, so the problem is not resolved, just moved.

However, I read the French (If I'm mistaken) EU minister's comments that Britain should take thise illegal immigrants into our economy and society with sheer amazement. I find this systemic of the European Union to saddle Britain with conditions that are detribental to Britain but happen to benefit everyone else. This is just but one reason why I cannot stand the EU.

If you'd like to know, we contribute £6.5bn a year to the EU and get virtually no financial benefits from it; we seem to pay for everyone else to benefit - take Spain's brand-new motorway infrastructure; largely paid for by the UK.

What also incenses me is that the EU rebate as fought bitterly for and secured by Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s and early 90s was simply given up by Tony Blair; yet another moronic and illogical piddling away of Britain's sovreignty and economic strength to the EU by this Labour Government.

Anyway, I digress.

I don't believe you are racist at all. I'm not either; sensationalist majority loves to jump on the "racial abuse" bandwagon when the idea of immigration, multiculturalism and ethnicity is even remotely criticised. Freedom of speech should allow for one person to state their views about any topic as long as that person does not directly incite hatred or violence. I leave that to the BNP. I fully support those (I think I wrote a huge essay on this earlier here) who move to this country and contribute to the economy and integrate with British society.

I think "human rights" is something that many people like to hide behind when they want something that otherwise would be barred from having. In relation to relations of asylum seekers, I think that this should not allow "automatic" asylum to be granted. The relations may have established themselves in this country and pay toward being part of Britain, and we need to have assurances at the very least that these children will be brought up to respect these values. Admittedly, you also cannot "limit" how many children a person can apply to bring to Britain, but as I have stated again and again, we should not have preferential treatment of these immigrants over any other claimant of benefits, housing, and other community services such as schooling and healthcare. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of background, and those from foreign climes should not be railroaded to these services faster than anyone else would be had they applied from Britain as it stands.

I however cast a fairly dim view that at the slightest whiff of trouble in places like Afghanistan or Iraq then displaced nationals should automatically be granted asylum on the grounds of political persecution. Reasons: It is too easy for everyone and anyone to say that they are being persecuted because of political or religious beliefs and for places like Iraq, on the other side of the world, it really is none of our concern.

Take the recent Tamil Tiger demonstration in Parliament Square this summer. It cost police millions, caused normal Londoners who only wanted to get to work untold misery in rush hour due to traffic delays and most importantly made absolutely no difference to the outcome of the Tamil/Sri Lankan civil war. Why should these people protest for our government to stick its nose into another foreign situation that we have no business interfering with; our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have been an unqualified success, have they not?

I agree that migrants do help our economy by filling jobs that indigenous British people (those born here) wouldn't do. However, if someone wishes to work like this, then they must work legally and declare themselves to the Border Agency - not only for their own welfare (to be covered by the Minimum Wage and employment laws) but also for the benefit of society (taxes and other legal declarations, plus they won't be deported and have nothing to fear from their honest living).

I agree that Britain is criminally soft when it comes to immigration control. Open borders to the EU has done nothing but bring a tidal wave of immigrants; some of which work legally but the majority of which go to ground and get lost.

I'd like to know what you think of the notion of closed borders but with a proviso that entry can be gained for long periods of time (six months onward) only by a successful application for a work permit. Otherwise the person will have to leave after six months when their holiday visa expires. This system works really well in Australia.

The rule that EU asylum seekers should seek asylum in the country in which they entered the EU is nice in theory but needs rigorous enforcement. Maybe a change in border policy as a deterrent would help the acceptance of this. It's a shame to see so many destitute people who might not bring much to our society flock to our shores to cash in on our lax benefits system (but that is a topic for another time).

These benefits, as you said, could be ploughed into schooling and healthcare and other public services that are required but unaffordable at present. The Government needs to take a serious look at its priorities about this.

To conclude (I've been reading your blog and commenting as I've been reading; it was a very good entry!) I think your closing paragraph sums up my views as it does for yours. Good show!

Feel free to discuss this subject with me at any time if you so wish, or rebut my entry with a comment or whatever.

:~)