Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In a strange land
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In a strange land
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” These are words which find absolutely no purchase in Britain in 2015. Fully 50% this month see immigration as one of the three most important issues facing Britain in Ipsos MORI’s regular poll for the Economist and it’s a safe bet that few of them are concerned that Britain isn’t getting e…
0
Comments
Cameron should just concentrate on the policies and not the commitments. Take practical steps, and the Tories can still outperform Labour who have the same problematic record.
I very much want us to take in as many of these desperate people as we can. The problem is absorbing them without destroying the thing they themselves are seeking. So how can we best absorb vast numbers?
It seems to me that societies on the receiving end of mass migration need to be very clear about what is & what is not acceptable behaviour. As with the previous thread on the Gentlemen's Agreement of the Privy Council, a cohesive society depends on people's innate understanding of what is & isn't acceptable.
We will probably need to codify 'acceptable behaviour' in a way we've never even dreamed of doing before. Only then will it be possible to say to would-be immigrants "This is what our society is. If you wish to reside here, you must agree to integrate into our society."
As an example, this might even lead us to decide that such a code states: "Faces will be visible." Anathema to some and an infringement of rights to others at the moment. But this sort of thing needs to be tackled if immigrants are to be given fair warning.
Codification of the socially acceptable would also, of course, impact the indigenous population in unforeseeable ways. And how are we going to police it all?
Another issue we may need to change is the position of later-generation immigrants. It's a truism that people set little value on what they've always had. So maybe we need to consider a ruling that citizenship has to be earned "unto the third & fourth generation", even though it's horrible to think of what this could lead to.
But I do think we could use the experience of the American Indian peoples as a worth-while case study. That wave of economic migration was deadly to their societies & ways of life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw
Firstly "So why are the public so worked up about the subject? In short, the media."
Ignorance is bliss, the events that the media have depicted have actually ocurred and the public rightly should be able to respond accordingly. Are you implying the media shouldn't cover or should reduce the coverage of the deaths of migrants in Libyan boats or the illegals at Calais? It is a crisis and rightly should receive as much coverage as the media organisations want to give it. If people have a problem with a specific organisation they can choose to no longer receive their media from that source.
Secondly the assertion "and believe, incorrectly, that Britain is in the frontline of this." is unjustified and I believe an incorrect assumption. You provide no evidence that people believe this. We do not have to be on the frontline of a problem to want solutions for the consequences that impact ourselves.
We can try to improve life where they are so the enterprising can hope to thrive at home (probably the only long-term solution - we don't see waves of Chinese fleeing their growing economy), and/or (ineffectively) make it harder to come in and/or accept multinational flows as being as inevitable as the flow of jobs to poorer countries was over the last 30 years. We've decided to be one world with leaky boundaries, and I'm not sure there's a practical way back, even if we want one. Being honest with voters about that may be the best option for Mr Cameron and others.
I honestly don't see a solution here. As pointed out it is not going to go away, but is there away to address the impacts in a way which is politically and socially acceptable to the public? Not without something giving, either in what migrants expect or what we expect, and neither will happen willingly or without something distasteful happening I suspect. I don't even see how properly starting a discussion about it, assuming the most objective discussion imaginable, free of the irrationality on all sides of this debate, could arrive at an equitable solution.
Maybe that's a lack of imagination or insight on my part, or a failure of our leaders to discuss the issue and inform the public in such a way that a solution seems possible, if difficult, but it just depresses me thoroughly.
Short terminism will be the order of the day, and I don't even really blame our politicians for that - for all leadership does sometimes mean rising above the froth and doing and saying things people need but may not want, voters punish those dealing out hard truths, even if we could identify those hard truths incontrovertibly and thus without opportunity for partisan advantage and disadvantage.
Oh dear, Cat Smith, no doubt, she is the another product of their "all-women shortlists?"
James O'Brien seemed less obnoxious than usual, although I think he was close to losing his temper with Ms Smith.
It would probably enrage the left, but one way to court favour with the electorate is to be choosy and obviously so. For example ... we don't care what colour or creed you are as long as you come here to work and make a real effort to fit in.
Genuine asylum seekers aren't that numerous so we can let the real ones in anyway. To annoy the left even more, you could preferentially let in Christians over militant Muslims.
Even if Labour screeched, but the more they complained, the more support they would lose. If any of ABC were LOTO, their complaints would be minimal.
If the current situation persists, EU laws will be changing anyway.
I think you are right about the present problem will cause rule/law changes. The Schengen rules for a start are leading to people being killed. The rules cover normal transit of goods and people not airless cattle wagons of extorted people.
Are we planning to deny British people the right to cover their head, should they so desire?
(a) a huge weakening in the principle of a rule of law,
(b) much greater social strife,
(c) much greater political support for hard right parties
(d) less cohesive nation states with less sense of social solidarity,
(e) many more home grown terrorists,
(f) increased incidence of diseases like tuberculosis, which we had previously eradicated
(g) lower wages for the unskilled
(h) less English being spoken in infant schools, reducing language development
(i) increased incidence of female genital mutilation and honour killings
(j) a larger population of people opposed to women working outside the home, and
(k) greater homophobia and anti-Semitism
A wall would be multi-purpose. It would keep UK citizens in and foreigners out. A big fort.
I am confident that the author must be a high income individual who does not have many in his or her social circle from ordinary backgrounds. Despite the snobbery of wealthy people, working class people not idiots that are easily led by the media. They are people who see things work out in practical terms, and willing to make conclusions that the political correctness of the chattering classes blinds them to.
On this issue, the public are bright enough to realise that the UK is bound to see a great number of this vast wave of migrants sooner or later. Firstly, the camps at Calais are likely to swell from much greater numbers of Africans and Arabs entering the Schengen area, which in turn means more being smuggled into the UK, which thousands are already doing. Secondly, a large fraction of the vast numbers being accepted by Sweden and Germany will get EU passports and travel straight to the UK.
On the other hand, have I got that the right way round?
Challenge Cup final about as one-sided as the Battle of Cannae.
On-topic: I imagine fears of enclaves, non-integration and the unwillingness or incapability of the state to stop indefensible acts because their prevention might be deemed 'not conducive to social cohesion' have not been helped by the Rotherham disgrace.
There may well be a gaping wide class divide. The media aren't likely to lose their jobs (or feel they might lose out) to migrants who can undercut them. There's also a war of language. Some want 'refugee' to be used instead of 'migrant'. I imagine others would want 'illegal immigrant/criminal' to be used, given this is not proceeding through established channels.
It's also notable that there's been a hell of a lot of media coverage about this, not just when the Tunnel was being breached all the time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11831568/Dont-write-off-Corbyn-his-insane-ideas-might-be-popular-in-a-crisis.html
Another myth is the line from Corbyn about much non-EU migration being "family reunion". It is not. Most spousal visas from the countries at the top of the list, like Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are not reuniting families. They are bringing in spouses that the UK partner barely knows and often hasn't yet married. I do not see why this is a practice our immigration system should accommodate. If you are marrying for a good match rather than someone you've fallen in love with, there are plenty of candidates in the UK. Although possibly it will not help tribal politics or having a supine wife.
1. They are taking our jobs.
2. They are changing our culture.
3. There isn't room for them. Pressure on hospitals, roads, houses etc.
4. They may include terrorists and criminals.
5. They are a different colour - i.e. racism. OK if they are Australian or Canadian.
Different people will have a different set of these objections. Not many hold objection 5 I hope. WWC males would major on objections 1 and 3 (and perhaps 5). Many conservatives would major on objections 2,3 and 4.
It would be useful if there was some research on the basis of people's concern regarding immigration.
All these objections (except 5) have some validity and need addressing openly and calmly. Some require better information on the scale of the problem. It may not be as bad as you think. Some need action - more housing, better integration, etc. Easier said than done.
I suspect that net migration will continue at around 300,000 for years to come, adding about 0.5% pa to GDP growth (income and consumption). Of these, asylum seekers will be a very small proportion.
To put it in perspective, Britain took in about 25,000 Asian Ugandans in 1972. In the period up to 2001, Britain took in 720,000 Irish (including my wife). 1.2% 0f the UK population was born in Ireland.
The movement of workers within the EU takes up most of our immigration and that issue is being rapidly taken over by economic migration from all over the world. I imagine most of these people are perfectly ordinary but that does not make much difference to the need to stop this movement for everyone's sake - not least those that end up dead in transit.
Asylum seekers (genuine ones) are relatively small numbers and could (and should) be welcomed. The flipside to this is that we need to be able to remove the non-genuine ones quickly and effectively, which means (I believe) a much more robust system of rapid decisions and removals, as well as fixing the "right to family life" judicial nonsense. The law states that you cannot gain from criminal enterprise, so we should use that here: if you have gained a family life while here illegally it shouldn't count.
Beyond that, deciding which immigrants we want and letting them in while effectively removing the rest is needed
Osborne's Treasury have not been supportive to more border police, more border expense and clampdowns. He may have viewed that as, harming the prospects of Theresa May, being pro commerce and in line with austerity, but the political consequences look bad for Osborne in 2 ways.
1. Damages the Conservatives "competence" image, a key factor at GE2020.
2. Risks driving up the No vote in the EC referendum.
Thatcher for example increased police pay whilst bearing down on the size of the state. She knew that some expenditures are essential.
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum
I recollect reading somewhere that there could be as many as 800,000 illegal immigrants in the UK. The easiest way to clampdown on illegal immigration would seem to be going after their employers - restaurants, building sites, cleaning companies, minicab firms, farms and the chattering classes maids etc.
Could someone with access to today's Times kindly let me know the Top Five coastalk walks in the supplement? TIA.
Oh, and good article Antifrank.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/09/public-attitudes-tax-distribution/
Good post.
http://nyti.ms/1MUknY1
I believe that EU immigration has been good for our economy and that a good part of them over time will move back and the situation will stabilize.
The greatest tragedy we have suffered is the parking of too many people on benefits. This having happened we now see how difficult in practice and politically it is to get them back into work. Its a pretty poor show that employers are happy to pay someone from Poland rather than someone from the UK.
There is no glib solution to any of this but both immigration should be slowed and the need for it should be slowed and the driving force for migration throughout the world should be slowed. But and its a big but, the these movements of people are in force and in terms of people here - we must ensure they integrate as British people not as foreigners living in Britain.
For yet another perspective, here's that appalling Left-wing rag, City AM:
http://www.cityam.com/223260/tories-blame-business-rising-immigration
One of the problems is a multi-faceted issue is presented in a simplistic fashion - not all migrants are trying to jump on trains or lorries in Calais - the vast majority aren't.
The demand for skilled workers is clear and the relationship between economic growth and the influx of skilled labour is also striking but throwing the baby out with the bathwater seems the general response - we need skilled immigrants, we always have, we probably always will.
Encouraging skilled people to come to the UK to work and live and deliver economic growth should be something on which we all agree.
Didn't realise a detention centre for illegal migrants is the same as a concentration camp...
'Asylum seekers (genuine ones) are relatively small numbers and could (and should) be welcomed. The flipside to this is that we need to be able to remove the non-genuine ones quickly and effectively, which means (I believe) a much more robust system of rapid decisions and removals, as well as fixing the "right to family life" judicial nonsense.'
Agree,but for that to happen we need to dump the ECHR and start making our own decisions of who is eligible to stay.
Next.
Read it and you will understand why immigration is the No1 issue in the UK
http://traditionalbritain.org/blog/road-national-suicide/
Excellent foresight here of the role of "Community leaders" and how the threat of violence from a minority of a minority combined with an establishment inclined to look the other way is like putting a match to gunpowder
"It is the business of the leaders of distinct and separate populations to see that the power which they possess is used to benefit those for whom they speak. Leaders who fail to do so, or to do so fast enough, find themselves outflanked and superseded by those who are less squeamish. The Gresham’s law of extremism, that the more extreme drives out the less extreme, is one of the basic rules of political mechanics which operate in this field: it is a corollary of the general principle that no political power exists without being used.
Both the general law and its Gresham’s corollary point, in contemporary circumstances, towards the resort to physical violence, in the form of firearms or high explosive, as being so probable as to be predicted with virtual certainty. The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. Those commanding a position of political leverage would then be superhuman if they could refrain from pointing to the acts of terrorism and, while condemning them, declaring that further and faster concessions and grants of privilege are the only means to avoid such acts being repeated on a rising scale. We know that those who thus argue will always find a ready hearing. This is what produces the gearing effect of terrorism in the contemporary world, yielding huge results from acts of violence perpetrated by minimal numbers. It is not, I repeat again and again, that the mass of a particular population are violently or criminally disposed. Far from it; that population soon becomes itself the prisoner of the violence and machinations of an infinitely small minority among it. Just a few thugs, a few shots, a few bombs at the right place and time—and that is enough for disproportionate consequences to follow."
'The first thing you notice as you approach passport control is the warm yellow light. It reminds you of a summer sunrise, but it’s actually just the reflection from the spotlights glinting off a giant golden marquee above the portal that now welcomes each and every new arrival to America. “Welcome to the U.S.A.,” say the immense gilded letters, “The Classiest Country on Earth.”
There’s something different about the customs officer who greets you. It is not just that she is impossibly cheerful — and with her cascading hair and her brilliant smile, she would remind you of a beauty queen if it weren’t for the badge and gun adorning her form-fitting, miniskirted uniform. She pulls a rubber stamp from an official U.S. government-issued garter belt, imprints your passport (assuming you are not a Mexican), and hands you a coupon book good for “the biggest discounts offered by any country in the world” as she welcomes you to the United States.
It is only when you reach the exit that you begin to realize who else that cotton-candy hairdo and smile remind you of. That’s because by each doorway welcoming new arrivals into America there stands a shimmering hologram of the president of the United States, America’s emcee in chief, Donald Trump. The new president beckons you onward, and a recording repeatedly booms his voice repeating, “America! It’s for winners!” It’s not only a greeting. It’s the new national motto, having replaced “e pluribus unum” on U.S. currency. (“Latin is for losers. Like in Latin America, am I right?”)'
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/27/welcome-to-trumpmerica-donald-trump-gop-election/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New Campaign&utm_term=*Editors Picks
With immigration we get hundreds of thousands of skilled people a year who have been educated in their own country at their own expense or their tax-payers expense. We save all that money on education and avoid a 15-20 year lead time. They are productive from day one and add something like 0.5% pa to our GDP from their production and income.
Osborne avoided his triple dip because of the extra 0.5% contribution of immigrants to GDP. We are an ageing population. We need to import many more skilled people to do the work. It might be immoral stripping other countries of their productive assets but it is definitely in our interests.
Germany and Ireland understand this and use immigration to manage their economies.
But we have a problem with the misconceptions and baseless fears in this country. Politicians and the media have a duty to deal with them.
'JZ..Which brings us back to the problem of where do we return these people to.
Maybe time to try the Australian system where migrants are processed offshore,the genuine cases are allowed entry and the economic migrants either return home or stay put.
'But we have a problem with the misconceptions and baseless fears in this country. Politicians and the media have a duty to deal with them.'
Wages cut,massive strains on the NHS,housing & schools not to mention overcrowding in London & the South East are misconceptions and baseless fears ?
You seem to be a long way from reality and the real world.
Are we in some sort of competition to see how many more people are needed before our services & systems completely collapse ?
Massive strains on the NHS,housing & schools - immigrants are shoring up the NHS. Housing needs to sorted anyway but there is shortage of skilled labour. Immigrants can provide that.
overcrowding in London - I agree it can be unpleasant trying to get around central London. But it is mainly tourists. Would you ban them to allievate the overcrowding?
Objections need to be addressed rather than pandered to.
I DO agree with filling genuine skills shortages with immigrants.
However I DO NOT agree with
a) Bringing in immigrants to do the job cheaper (1), or
b) Bringing in immigrants to solve a skills shortage which could be remedied by a small amount of retraining of people who are already UK citizens.
DISCLOSURE. This is a point very close to home with me. In my business (IT) I am personally suffering because of it right now.
(1) I've seen this first hand.
I have nothing against immigration (far from it in fact).
But the current obsession from certain politicians to prove how "non racist" they are, by allowing mass immigration no matter what the consequences, is absolutely crazy.
or you could put it ,immigrants are shoring up the NHS because a rise in our population down to immigration.
'Wages cut - solution is higher minimum wage and crackdown on dodgy employers.'
A higher minimum wage will have zero impact on skilled workers that are above that level but have seen their incomes fall.
'Massive strains on the NHS,housing & schools - immigrants are shoring up the NHS. Housing needs to sorted anyway but there is shortage of skilled labour. Immigrants can provide that'
The housing shortage is due to demand massively outstripping supply year after year, due to mass uncontrolled immigration.
'overcrowding in London - I agree it can be unpleasant trying to get around central London. But it is mainly tourists. Would you ban them to allievate the overcrowding? '
Nonsense, I have lived in London for the past 30 years,tourism didn't start 15 years ago !
Since when did the overcrowded South East region become a massive magnet for tourists?.
What's your thinking on that ? Are you laying him still or was this previously ? Are you going to let it run or try and reback higher or stop loss lower ?
Its been all downhill since Farage took over at UKIP.. Euro win, By election wins, defections, record GE vote..
Why not get rid of him and replace with a woman who lost her seat on Merton council?! A few people on here have heard of her, she's not Farage, that's good enough
It is a mega crisis that needs to be addressed.
What are possible solutions?
1. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and bring them to the EU and distribute them fairly among the nations. I suggest that is politically impossible, at least in the UK.
2. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and return them to the land they've just left. Big logistics. Could work.
3. Sort out Libya, Syria, etc so they don't want to leave. Good luck with that one.
Any other suggestions? Wringing our hands isn't a solution.
She's also the party's deputy chair.
And your point about her lack of electoral success also applies to Farage: he is only an MEP due to the crass closed-list PR system, and he's failed to get into parliament an incredible seven times. At least she gained a seat on a council - which is more than Farage has done - even if it was for another party.
I understand you don't rate her, but you should. If she can raise praise from me, who is hardly a UKIP fan, then you should perhaps consider taking her seriously.