Sunday, October 07, 2007

Immigration: The Subject Which Dare Not Speak Its Name

At the Conservative Conference David Davis put immigration firmly back on the political agenda. Nigel Farage made it the centrepiece of his speech to the UKIP conference on Friday. There's no doubt about it, it's one of the biggest concerns of the electorate, and yet many politicians and many journalists shy away from it. Today's Mail on Sunday was a good example. The MoS had a poll and they compiled a table of which party was considered to have the best policies. Labour were shown to be ahead on schools, health, housing, the economy, the envionrment and transport. The Tories were highlighted as being ahead on law and order, tax, Europe, Iraq and the War on terror. But by 42% to 18% they were also shown to have the best immigration policy. However, this policy was not highlighted in the table, despite the margin being the biggest of any policy. And nowhere in the accompanying article was it mentioned either.

On its own it doesn't mean much, but it is symptomatic. It's why Sayeeda Warsi was right to point out that people's concerns need addressing, and immigration is one of the subjects people feel political parties are not addressing at all. It doesn't need to be done in the shrill manner of the 2005 election campaign under Michael Howard. That's why it was a masterstroke to appoint Damian Green to the position of Shadow Immigration Minister. I think it's fair to say he will be playing a key role in selling the Tory position on immigration and in partnership with David Davis they can map out a policy which will be seen as firm but reasonable. And without a dog whistle in sight.


Anonymous said...

Settled immigrants have much more to lose from excessive immigration than the indigenous population. It affects their employment and housing prospects far more than it affects the white middle class. When are they going to wake up?

Prodicus said...

Seen the Shepshed local by-election results?

Sunny said...

Damn, the overlords for the establishment of political correctness have gotten to the Mail on Sunday too! Soon it will no doubt be running articles sympathetic to Poles and talking about the harsh conditions they face in this country.

It's about time the Tories start talking about immigration! If only they'd made that a central issue over the past two elections they could have won!

Anonymous said...


It's not the duty of politicians to agree with the voters and their prejudices, all Conservatives ought to know that.

It is the duty of politicians to advance the national interest.

The reality is that immigration has been in the national interest and it is time a few Conservatives had the courage to say so instead of - as you do - pretend that this issue - which is never out of the papers or off the TV news is some how being suppressed.

The fact that the electorate are prejudiced and racist isn't a reason for people to knuckle down to them.

And Warsi is a disgrace.

Iain Dale said...

Sunny, I always find it helps to read an article before commenting on it. Are you seriously saying that political parties shouldn't discuss this issue in an intelligent way?

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

UKIP are having a conference?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Anonymous 9.52. What sanctimonious twadddle.

It took no seconds for someone like you to shout "racist" as soon as the subject of immigration comes up.

Multiculturalism didn't work. The cities are ghettoes full of people who come here to rig votes, deal in drugs, make us stop eating snacks at work during Ramadan and who shoot each other's children. The second most popular name for a child in Britain is...Mohammed.

The present terrorist threat is 100% a product of immigration and you say the people of this country are racists.

We are proud of our way of life. It has served us well for many years and we have freedom and democracy and the chance for anybody, of any race to make it to the higest office.

In Africa you have Aids, but the President of South Africa doesn't believe in it, in Zimbabwe you have torture and oppression and starvation. In Somalia you have slaughter. In Pakistan you have civil war. In the middle east they flog women and homosexuals and persecute Christians.

I could go on but I have made my point.

We don't want it here. If that's racist, then tough. The British Public are fair and decent. Most of the rest of the world is not.

Diablo said...

Wrinkled Weasel (10.10pm) - whilst I agree with the general point you are making I think I'd choose my words more carefully and, perhaps, based on some basic facts.

For example, we are a small island; there's is a finite limit to the number of people who can live here; in some parts of the country there are already severe pressures on our basic infrastructure - schools, hospitals, housing, transport and some areas of some cities are already "swamped" (as a previous Labour Home Secretary once said) with such a large volume of non-indigenous, non-English speaking extended families that the established populations feel overwhelmed.

Even in the small (100,000 population) town where I live in the North Midlands we are beginning to see far more groups of people from all over the world (who stand out, not so much by the colour of their skin, but by their style of clothing, language, etc) but not to the extent that we feel "swamped" - yet.

But if current trends are allowed to continue without some form of control (for example, the points system that the Conservatives suggested and has been adopted in part by NuLabour) then the nature of this small town will change very quickly.

It's all very well NuLabour et al saying that immigration has had a positive benefit on the economy (that might be true in parts of the country and in certain sectors of the economy) but to ordinary Joe Public they just see that their world has changed without them being asked if they agree.

That's why we need to be able to discuss immigration policy in a mature way without being accused of being racist.

Sunny said...

Are you seriously saying that political parties shouldn't discuss this issue in an intelligent way?

Never denied it Iain. But any intelligence went out of the immigration debate decades ago.

After all, we have the amusing prospect of the right refusing to regularise the illegals already here despite knowing that over half a million people could never be deported, and that keeping them illegal not only makes them easy to exploit but grows the black economy.

Is that what they call 'Compassionate Conservativism'?

The Labour party meanwhile deports the most vulnerable and honest asylum seekers because they're easier to deal with than the real problem.

I'm still unsure why you guys on the right keep stating this is an issue that 'dare not speak its name' when immigration is constantly talked about in the media.

verity said...

First, the British thought fascists should stop pretending that an intense dislike of islam is "racist". Islam's a religion and that means adherents have a choice as to whether to obey its philosophy or not.

Race isn't a choice.

This sly melding of the two distinct meanings has been worked by the leftist thought fascists (more politely known as "political correctness") to destabilise a culture they hate: the British culture.

It is the one-worlders who encouraged immigrants from more primitive societies - and specifically islamic areas - to adopt a set of grievances. Now, school lunches in many areas include halal meat - without the knowledge or consent of Christian or non-religious parents. Despite that Britain was the first country in the world to take a serious interest in animal welfare, this repulsive form of slaughter is being slipped in as "normal".

On 7/7, fellow traveller Tony Blair's first action was not to condemn the religious fanatics who blew up London Transport or to sympathise with the families of those murdered or maimed. He, instead, sternly ordered the British people not to take reprisals agains islamics.

As though that was our habit.

This has been a deliberate deculturisation of a stable, ancient culture which had furthered civilisation with its laws and inventions, and superior status granted to an alien incoming culture and I call it treason.

khalifa said...

It is ridiculous to claim that immigration is bad when the strongest nation in the world, the USA, derives its strength from immigration.

You are mad or stupid to pretend otherwise.

Iain Dale said...

Khalida, I never suggested anything of the sort. Controlled immigration is a very good thing indeed. Uncontrolled immigration is not. Surely everyone would agree that.

verity said...

Sunny, sweetie, I have never been accused of "compassionate conservatism". This is an American political slogan, invented in a different context - not religion - in the United States by US politicians. I have a chilling feeling that you don't even understand that you are trying to import a political slogan from another environment. Or perhaps you do and thought we wouldn't notice. What's the term for "straw man" in your country?

Sunny says: "we have the amusing prospect of the right refusing to regularise the illegals already here despite knowing that over half a million people could never be deported, ...".

I'm not alone in not finding this "amusing".

We can certainly deport illegals of any race, as opposed to 'regularise' them. Arrest, van to airport, secure holding area where they have to give a swab of their DNA and have a retinal photos taken. Take off. Bye bye forever.

verity said...

khalifa - The British Isles and the continent of Europe have been settled for two thousand years or more.

N America had a few scattered indigenous people - the figure is a possible four million over millions of square miles - who had never progressed beyond the hunter gatherer stage of evolution.

The continent was empty. As in vacant.

The British colonised them, to everyone's advantage. The Americans discovered the joys of refining petroleum and riding around without a horse, and suddenly the tribes in Oklahoma were rich beyond the dreams of European kings. British and Europeans brought the joys of poker and gambling to the continent, and tribes that own gambling casinos (on which they are forgiven taxes)in Nevada and some of the NE states are rolling in clover.

That has nothing to do with the inhabited, developed continent and ancient civilisation of Europe that goes back for over 2,000 years. Your argument is pigswill.

verity said...

Can I just add that our very welcome and integrated Jewish, Hindu and Chinese immigrants don't seem to have any problems adjusting to our society? All are valued and respected for what they have brought to the fabric of Britain. All have contributed greatly to our wealth creation.

Diablo said...

verity (11.13pm) - I refer you to my previous answer (11.03pm).

As for khalifa's point (11.18pm)about the USA - the "greatest melting pot" in the world, well in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries perhaps - but the USA has an enormously larger landmass than our little island. And they have always controlled immigration - perhaps not as successfully as they would want. Mexico's economy, it's southern neighbour, relies on the in-flow of dollars from its (illegal) migrants.

France has about the same population as the UK but it's landmass is four times bigger than the UK's. Lot's of room for new (Brown-style) eco-towns and they already have sustainable nuclear power as their source of energy. Wouldn't it be great if they absorbed the vast majority of the projected numbers of immigrants to Europe from the Middle East and the north, east, west and south of Africa? They have got more space after all.

But no. Immigrants want to come to the UK because we pay the most benefits. I don't pretend to understand why someone would travel thousands of miles across the Middle East and Africa, through Europe just so they can live on state benefits in the UK. Perhaps we are perceived as being more tolerant than all those countries they have passed through.

But the fact remains we are a small island and we can't just keep taking more and more people into this country.

I am no UKIP supporter but I can see that their suggestion that there should be a 5-year moratorium will appeal to some people who are feeling "swamped"

Conservatives, NuLabour and LibDems watch out.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Diablo, everything I write is predicated on "basic facts", and if they sound inflammatory as you imply, they don't included such remedies as beheadings, stonings and fatwas.

verity said...

WW - Well said!

Diabolo - No, Mexico does not rely on transfers from emigrants to the US to power its economy. Mexico has oil and it has NAFTA, the giant powering Mexico's economy. Go to any supermarket parking lot and take a look at those late model Japanese and American cars. You could be in the US or Canada.

And it works to everyone's advantage - including the advantage to the US and Canada that eventually, Mexico will be rich enough so young men don't have to leave their families to sneak into the US in order to support their relatives.

Let's be honest about this. The relatives are people from tiny, remote villages, mainly untouched by civilsation (they'll have a TV, though) whose whole family lives in a hut, sleeping in hammocks ...

What is more, Mexico is dealing with its own illegals, from Guatamala. Guatamala is in Central America, not North America, and is not part of NAFTA. Yet they speak the same language and they look the same and Mexico now has a problem with illegals. Many of these people use Mexico as a stop on the highway of illegal immigration, and they get through, after many attempts - the US border guards do not shoot or injure them; they just escort them in trucks back across the Rio Grande. But a lot of what reaches the US has made it through the vast expanse of Mexico from Guatamala.

Ignorant people should not not be making comments on countries they have never visited and don't understand, Diabolo, based on agenda-laden myths from elsewhere.

Diablo said...

Wrinkled Weasel (12.24am): Fair point. Can't argue with that!

But I was trying to make a general point about the effects of uncontrolled immigration into the UK. Not the incredible inhumanity of some religions that advocate beheadings, stonings and fatwas.

I am fully with you on condemning these medieval acts that are still condoned by some Islamist states. Iran is still hanging people in public for being homosexual and committing adultery, still stoning people to death, etc.

Don't confuse the questions we must ask about the level of immigration into the UK with the horrible values that some of these people use to subjugate their people. That is probably why most of them choose to leave to their own land in the first place.

Yak40 said...


The US encouraged immigration, especially in the late 19th century. This was legal immigration. From the early 20th century until the 60s immigration was relatively low as the "melting pot" worked its magic. Laws were changed to encourage mass immigration in the 60s and, coupled with the massive illegal immigration from Latin America brings us to today - where parts of the country are swamped by illegals clogging the public hospitals, jails, and so on e.g. southern California. Check it out, the facts are out there.

The UK is a small country (in area), the gov't does not even know how many are here now but their effects are being felt in public services, schools, housing.

There should be a moratorium on all immigration for at least five years.

Diablo said...

verity (1.23pm) - I was baiting you about Mexico, if you didn't already realise!

But your response was very informative. It illustrates the diverse reasons for global population movements.

Just don't accept that the land you happen to live in has got it all right. We haven't in the UK.

verity said...

Yak - Khalifa is not an informed person. She was probably born in Britain to some strict islamic family and has absolutely no idea about the rest of the world. Just what she's/he's picked up in Politically-Correct Class instead classes in World History or Economics, let's say, or Ancient Greek.

Five years is not long enough for a moratorium on immigration, given the depth of the problem caused by the islamics in our country. Chinese, Hindus, Jews don't horde chemicals to make bombs to murder our people (they win through cuisine; OK, maybe not the Jews).

I'd say it will take 10 years to return the illegals to their countries, and for us to figure out what to do with the rest of them (meaning the islamics who can't settle). France gives them money to go away, and that is not a bad idea.

Skillipedia said...

What about those who have been here for donkeys's years? If the Tories want to prove their seriousness, they should allow theose who have lived here for more than 10 years to work and live decently; otherwise it will sound like another electoreering spin.

english democrat said...

Annon 09.52 shows us all just how anti democratic and neo fascist the leftists/socialists realy are!

"its not the duty of politicians to agree with the voters and their prejudices"

So with that perverted and warped logic then why have elections at all? are the British public so ignorant and stupid that they cannot decide the issues without being told what to think and say?

The Annon post is a crystal clear picture of how the socialist/leftists view the British electorate and how they truly hate and despise ordinary people!

"the fact that the electorate are prejudiced isnt a reason to knucle down to them"

The British are perhaps the most tolerant people on earth and again you show your contempt and hatred of democracy!

Heres a simple fact for you to swallow... democracy is the will of the majority pure and simple! IF you leftists/socialists hate and distrust people so much why not be honest and come out and say that you would install a soviet system/regime instead of the free democratic open system we have now?
But that would be honest and that is the one thing you aint!

We have just seen how keen you leftists are on the democratic system with the mindless destruction in Switzerland! If something doesnt go the leftists way? then they smash things up like spoilt children!
And for the record most immigrants send the bulk of their money overseas! so in fact they TAKE more than they GIVE in terms of money alone and thats not counting the services they consume!

Manfarang said...

As any with a foreign wife knows immigration from outside the EU is controlled.This year biometric visas are required for anyone entering the UK.

Vienna Woods said...

As I pointed out in another thread here, economic migration to the UK is the real problem, not true refugees. Quite simply, we should take a step, or two back and forbid anyone entering the UK unless they have a formal offer of work at a level of pay that does not undermine the jobs of the indigenous population. Only those whose skills we really need should be allowed in and only then if there are urgent needs. Finally, and most importantly we must renege on the EU agreement which allows cross border freedom. This has to be stopped and quickly. We are allowing so many former east Europeans to settle here, a good proportion of which do not not contribute anything to our society, create ghettos and overburden our social services.

Anonymous said...

Why do we pay people not to work when there is such demand for labour? It is not about immigration but welfare. Reform the welfare system and there will be less demand for immigrant labour. Make work more attractive by taking people on minimum and low wage sout of taxation.

Anonymous said...

Diablo said...

"but not to the extent that we feel "swamped" - yet."

Talk for yourself.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Diablo. Well, yes and no. Some migrants do leave because of intolerable pressures in their homlands and they are very welcome - that is until they start slagging us off at every opportunity, like Yasmin Ali Baba or they import gun crime or deal in human sex trafficking.

oWhat has gone wrong is proper border controls and proper vetting. It is as though thousands of undesirables have just got in on the nod.

Recently I met a widowed lady in her sixties, an American National who has a distinguished academic record who entered the country legally. She is of independent means and is seeking to work here in a socially useful field. The immigration authorities have threatened her with deportation on two occasions, up to the point where they were going to load her onto a plane the next day. It took the intervention of our local MP to sort it out.

Cut to the hundreds of nasty, thieving gits who come here illegally and burden our resources. It's clear that the authorities are indeed so swamped by undesirables that they give up and instead pick on white little old ladies because they try and do it the straight way.

Our culture is being infiltrated by people who have no respect for our way of life.

In 2002, Muhammed Hussain from Blackburn, Lancashire, pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud local elections. He won a 685 majority in the elections for Bastwell ward on Blackburn Council.

In 2005 a Judge upheld a ruling against six Birmingham Labour councillors who had been rigging postal votes.

Judge Mawrey said evidence of "massive, systematic and organised fraud" in the campaign had made a mockery of the election and ruled that not less than 1,500 votes had been cast fraudulently in the city.

He famously added,

"evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic" - in response to a government statement to the effect that concerns over the frauds were "scaremongering"

The evidence is overwhelming.

We cannot carry on like this. Multiculturalism has failed and we are being cheated because of our open and liberal society. Furthermore the inability of any of the main parties to deal with this is a disgrace.

Iain is right to call this the issue that "dare not speak its name".

It's time it came out of the closet and was shouted from the rooftops.

Travis Bickle said...

anonymous 9:07

absolutely spot on. The reason we need immigrant labour is because over successive generations whole home grown families in our society have cottoned on to the fact that they can sit at home watching the racing whilst the state (ie us taxpayers) pay for their booze and fags. (The joke is that this is of course entirely in working mans party "Labour's" interest.)

Meanwhile my son-in-law came as an immigrant 3 years ago and took a job that most British people wouldn't get out of bed for, depressing as it was he has now been promoted several times and (rather than moaning about it) is well established on the housing ladder - all paid for with earned fully taxed money.

So immigration is not in itself the whole problem what I want to hear more of (touched on in Cameron's speech) is when are we going to stop spongers (mostly British) being allowed, oe even encouraged, to take the piss out of the system?

Cameron can tackle it this way without even needing to defend the racist accusations that will be shouted every time the subject is broached. (unless by Labour members , when it is deemed reasonable)

Newmania said...

In 20 years the English white ethnic group will reach the end of a 1000 years in which they have been the majority in England . I have invented a bus with 30 people on it that you might have got on this morning and this is the way it will look now and in 2027 assuming current rates of change.

Bus 2007
30 people
24 White English (80%)

Bus 2027
34 People
17 White English (50%)

Bus 2047
38 people
8 White English (21%)

Show Your Working

There was a net emigration of 107000 British and a net immigration of 292000 other ethnicities last year. This was in my recent boring stat mine, and based on government figures that may well be underestimates. .In the population 560000 arrive and 380000 leave annually so there is a net migration of 180,000 but the first figure is what people are really worried about because it is the coherence and integrity of the national culture that is perceived as threatened.

The Changing Mix On The Bus Of England

Call. England a bus of 30 people . As , in the 2001 census Eighty-seven per cent of the population of England gave their ethnic origin as White British we’ll say , and this is out of date , 26 of the 30 bus travellers are ethnically English. Population is, according to the government ,rising overall at 285000 per year. And the population of England is 50,000000. I have to guess here but my guess is that practically all that rise is in England certainly Scotland has been depopulating until very recently. In bus terms then you get a new passenger every five years more or less.
By net ethnic change by immigration alone but one member of the bus ( to make it simple )changes from black to white every 4.1 years In twenty years then the bus will have 34 people on it of which 9 are now “other ethnicities” .
However this does not include the vastly different rates of population growth of ethnic minorities. In fact English are replacing themselves at the staggeringly low rate of 1.4. In twenty years then by sheer non breeding the replacement rate is about 1.52 or 76 % so the bus will actually have in twenty years.2007, 30 People of whom are 26 White English By 2027 34 People 19 of whom White English
In fact the 26 is the position at 2001 not 2007 . The change in proportion is also moderated by the assumption that population growth is all in England but I want to err on the side of caution. If we project the rate of change of proportion ( which we now know ) back and then recalculate the probable position at 2007.In 20 years the proportion of white English changes from 26/30 to 19./34 which is 86 % to 55 % or 1 and a half % per year ( in bus terms o.45) 2.7 actually so I’ll call it 2 again to err on the side of caution
So the true position roughly and as far as I can work out is as I have mentioned above
I appreciate of course that there are assumptions here but the basic figures are solid and the maths is just schoolboy stuff . I have moreover tried to drift towards the Conservative as I have gone through. I have shown the working any criticisms are easily made the final interation is aonly a bit of fun really as the peeiod is toom long .Is this a bad thing or a good thing . I would say it should be handled carefully and slowing the rate of change is clearly a sensible response

Anonymous said...

It had better be dealt with or the consequences will be catastrophic. In pubs non racsist people can be overheard talking of future civil conflicts. I'm not sur how serious they are or if it's just anger and frustration. Time will tell. The political class had no idea what is happening in reality and when they do I fear it will be too late. Historically the current immigration levels pose as great a threat as did the barbarion invasions of the late western Roman Empire before it fell.

chris (m) said...

If the effects of global warming as predicted come about then the world is going to be short of food. The UK will need every precious acre of green land for its agriculture to produce food. It is insane therefore to stoke up the population of an already overpopulated island with the sorts of levels of immigration we are currently seeing. We should be reducing it not growing it.

As for the economic benefits of immigration these only exist to the extent that the UK education system is failing and is not producing the skilled employees we need. Immigration gives the politicians and employers the option to avoid making hard decisions and to ignore fixing the education system. To the extent that it draws in skills from abroad it is bad in that impoverishes the countries where the skilled workers originate also.

Manfarang said...

Many of the English white ethnic group in London have Huguenot blood in their veins.
The level of New Commonwealth immigration is now at a low level.Of course there are about one million people of English descent in South Africa who could return to their homeland.

verity said...

Manfarang - So??

I don't believe the Hugenots had any backward habits like multiple wives, death to homosexuals, four male required as witnesses before a judge will believe a woman has been raped, a woman's sworn word in court formally given the credence of one-half a man's word, etc etc etc. I think I'm right in saying that neither the Hugenots or the Jews ever tried to impose their religion on the host society? I don't believe they washed brains with mandatory five- times-a-day prayers?

Do not try to establish an equivalence where there is none.

Manfarang said...

What do you think the English Civil war was all about?
Have you ever heard of Calvinism?
In today's world-the Free Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland? They would love to impose their ways on you, so no wine with your lunch and you had better get to work on all those misguided souls around you in Mexico.

Anonymous said...

Most immigration is nothing but cheap labour, often without the 'labour' bit.

Nulab's New Deal 'courses' are stuffed with non-English types being given basic English lessons at State expense, often without much effect and less interest.

Meanwhile the English cannot get jobs because employers prefer foreigners who will live squillions to the room and send most of their earnings back to their own countries.

The occasional import may get promotion because someone has to be able to communicate with the rest of the imports. So what?

You only have to read some of the posts here or at other sites like the Telegraph to see that the real reason for all these imports is that tories hate the English (unless they live in places like Surrey or Mayfair) just as much as do the lib/labs.

Way past the point of the lib/lab/cons getting this disaster sorted out. 'Civil conflict' is just the polite term for where we're all going.