52 2 mins 8 yrs

I thought this was interesting.

Britain should be able to block immigration from other EU countries during the current period of high unemployment, according to a group of influential MP

Should?

“The MPs, two of the most influential politicians in the immigration debate, suggest that draconian action should now be considered “during periods of high unemployment” — such as now — to protect low-skilled British workers struggling to compete with foreigners for jobs.

One in five young British workers is currently unemployed, with about one million people aged 18 to 24 out of work. The MPs say that Britain is still facing an influx of people at an “unsustainable level” despite Coalition action to reduce immigration. They add that the expected wave of immigration from Bulgaria and Romania — which could lead to 50,000 people a year moving to this country from next year — means that the need to tackle the issue “could not be more stark.”

Well, fair enough as far as it goes but it just don’t go far enough.

MOST UK immigration does not come from the EU but rather outside the EU. With Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other such 3rd world areas contributing the greatest number of Immigrants we also need to turn the valve off there too! When I said this live on TV during the 201o general election, those on the left called me a waaaay-cist!! In doing so they exposed their innate stupidity. I couldn’t care LESS what race anyone is – but when it comes to Immigration unless they have a skill set that we do not have then they are essentially welfare tourists.  We cannot afford to indulge the multiculti agenda when our economy is sliding down the toilet.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

52 thoughts on “THE ELEPHANT IN THE IMMIGRATION ROOM!

  1. You probably saw this. It was in last Saturday’s Mail, entitled :-

    ” Why we on the Left made an epic mistake on immigration”
    By David Goodhart.
    To me it showed the arrogant naivety of a group who will always know what is best for others, and think they are really rather wonderful for having the courage to admit they got it wrong!
    Never mind the arrogant way they accused those who questioned them as “out and out racists, little Englanders” etc.
    Never mind that in their stupidity they have introduced a policy of Separate Development, so that instead of being a united society we are becoming a divided one. Never mind the influx of foreign career criminals and scamsters, or that millions are now being spent on an anti-terrorist campaign caused by politicians, or that millions of Brits aren’t working because they are better off on benefits, so foreign workers are needed to do the jobs for less money.
    You can read the full article here..
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297776/SATURDAY-ESSAY-Why-Left-epic-mistake-immigration.html

  2. Actually, around half of all immigrants in the UK are from Europe, North America, Australia etc. Only a minority come from what could be called the “third world”.

  3. Ooops, meant to put in the quote on top

    //MOST UK immigration does not come from the EU but rather outside the EU. With Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other such 3rd world areas contributing the greatest number of Immigrants//

  4. //Those coming from Europe are not necessarily European in origin.//

    So what? We are all African “in origin”, if it comes to that.

    I was referring to “With Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other such 3rd world areas contributing the greatest number of Immigrants”. People arriving from Europe and north America and the Far East are not coming from the Third World.

    This graph shows about 8.5 m immigrants in England and Wales – a huge number. Of that total, 3.6 million, less than half, are from Asia and Africa, and from the Asian figure you have to deduct the approx. 300 to 400 K from China, Korea, Japan and other non-3rd-world countries.
    In the end, immigrants from 3rd-world countries will probably make up no more than one third of the total.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/interactive/2012/dec/14/immigration-uk-charts

  5. The Guardian is way off if it suggests that “immigrants from 3rd-world countries will probably make up no more than one third of the total”. Third World colonisers have long outnumbered immigrants from better places, a disparity which took off after 1997.

  6. There is of course no such phenomenon as third world colonisation of the UK, it’s just an invented term by Pete as well as being a false example of what Colonisation means.

  7. // Third World colonisers have long outnumbered immigrants from better places//

    Pete, that graph of yours tells us little. For example, under “Asia” it makes no distinction between immigrants from Hong Kong and Pakistan, Japan and Borneo.
    I think you meant it to contradict what I wrote, but it doesn’t.

  8. Noel Cunningham –

    Immigrants from Hong Kong, Japan, China or Borneo are a fraction of those from Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.

  9. The numbers you speak of are simply astonishing.

    And someone at any time thought that this was a good idea?

  10. Like Topsy, it just growed..

    The lesson is that once you make a decision you live with the consequences, good or bad.
    There are white people here who are apparently ashamed of our imperial past of exploring the world and building an Empire. They feel the need to punish themselves, and they do this vicariously :).
    Personally I can’t feel responsible for what my ancestors did, only for what I have done.

  11. It’s a mistake to think that well-meaning but misguided people made the policies which resulted in this flood.

    They were conscious policy decisions made by bad people with bad intent.

  12. Pakistan, Bangladesh and India were all part of the British Empire.

    You reap what you sow.

  13. Pete,
    Given the electoral apathy that has built up during our years of relative prosperity, politicians have been free to commit us to stupid policies which subsequent governments have for various reasons continued and compounded.
    The voracious beast that is our Welfare State is a case in point. No one in their right mind would have designed a Benefit system which made paid employment less financially beneficial.
    Anyway, I thought you didn’t believe in conspiracy theories?

  14. I don’t believe in “conspiracy theories”, which is a meaningless term, but I do believe in the facts of conspiracies.

  15. If you mean by that a/any political party, then yes. A conspiracy to achieve a certain objective happens.
    But that conspiracy objective will not necessarily be shared by their political opponents. The EU project, yes. Unlimited immigration I don’t think so.

  16. Agit8ed –

    “Conspiracy theory” is a pejorative term flung at opponents to shut down debate.

    A conspiracy is also applied to three people discussing something in a room with which you disagree. When you agree with the objectives these conspiracists become a noble band with good intentions.

    Was the open doors immigration policy discussed and planned and implemented in government? Yes, so it was a conspiracy against the British people.

  17. Conspiracy theory is not ment to shut down debate but to demonstrate the ridiculous origin and theories offered by some.

    Unrestricted immigration is not a good thing. Neither is too large an influx.

  18. If I was an Anglais, I’d stay that the proper level of immigration from Pakistan is one 70 year old person every decade.

    The culture clash is too great to consider any more.

    What do you think that the proper rate of immigration should have been?

  19. Mahons,
    When someone like Allan for example gets fixated by the idea that behind all world events there lies a shadowy bunch of powerful people pulling strings, it can be very powerful and difficult to refute. In that sense it shuts down debate because one side is being totally unreasonable. Hasn’t that been proven by Allan?

    Now when you and I debate certain subjects we treat each other with unfailing courtesy, piercing intellectual argument and scintillating wit….. 🙂

    Oy Vey!

  20. Phantom – Pakistan and the UK have long had ties (dating back to the old Empire days as Fews pointed out), there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the UK of Pakistan descent, and they do not all have the culture clash that the worst elements of Radical Islamists do. A reasonable policy would certainly not be limited to one person.

  21. Agited – I ment that the calling the conspiracy theorists for what the yare is not ment to shut them down.

  22. I am well aware of the history of the Raj and of the fact that ” all ” are not a problem.

    The question remains – would the UK have been a better place if we could go back in time to implement my modest proposal?

    What was the proper level of immigration from Pakistan? ( I’ve asked this question a number of times, and never get an answer from any of the pro immigration people )

  23. “If I was an Anglais,”

    Let’s swap.
    I wouldn’t mind being an American Insurance Placer for a while!

  24. “Agited – I ment that the calling the conspiracy theorists for what the yare is not ment to shut them down.”

    That was a well written, well phrased response Mahons. Did you write it under the influence?

  25. Phantom,
    immigration levels are falling under the Coalition government, but it’s going to take a long time to see what the overall affects on Britain will be.
    Unlike the US these demographic changes have happened here in an incredibly short period of time. My guess is that the UK as I knew it and even as you know it will cease to exist completely. Part of that process is the non teaching of our island history and (partly) the abandonment of reading/studying classic literature.

  26. Phantom – You’ll have to research it yourself. i do know that the UK had labor shortages and that immigrants from Pakistan came to work in their industry. There were likley educated folks (such as doctors) who immigrated as well. Part of the failure to assimialteby soem is no doubt culture, but not merely the immigrants’ culture, don’t forget the class structire in the UK. God knows when they were at war in the middle of the last century the UK reached out to all of the folks in their Empire (past and present) to assist them and the help was critical.

    I think reasonable immigration is sensible, unrestricted and unregulated is insane.

  27. But – the question that no supporter of big immigration ever answers – I’m appointing you King of the UK right now, with absolute power.

    What number of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh should be allowed in the next decade?

    I don’t expect an answer, since the supporters of immigration only give a casual evasiveness on this, the Ralph Kramden hamana hamana

    It is a very hard question, granted, but not putting a number on it is exactly what has led to the current state.

  28. “What number of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh should be allowed in the next decade?”

    Why would there be a number? What is the correct number of Americans to ‘allow’?

  29. There is no significant American immigration to the UK, and to my knowledge those few who do immigrate there haven’t caused problems.

    Do you see immigration from Pakistan as generally the same as immigration from Switzerland? Are the Swiss and Pakistani cultures about the same, about as easy to blend in to the national culture of England?

  30. Phantom,
    I believe in tough love.
    There has to be a judgment call on immigration versus integration and the ability of the infrastructure to cope.
    Like when we were discussing maladjusted young people or paedophiles or whatever else. There has to be a breaking of the cycle, because the infrastructure and caring services cannot cope indefinitely.

    So personally I would call a halt to immigration until we have properly debated and resolved the issues of

    a) Getting Brits off Benefits and back to worthwhile paid employment.
    b) Increasing incentives and rewards for young Brits to study important professions (NOT lawyers or Social Workers) at university.
    c) A reassertion of the supremacy of British Law and customs; whilst leaving room for British citizens to follow their own cultural and religious beliefs in their private lives, but not allowing those beliefs to prevent them finding paid employment.
    d) Maybe the reintroduction of national military service to include some form of community service. They say it would be ridiculously expensive, but in terms of integration and bridge building it would be invaluable.
    e) No appeals allowed deportation for serious criminals, terrorists or specific political agit8tors

  31. I’ll ask again: why should there be a number?

    Why would a central planner set a quota by country of origin and ignore other criteria?

  32. What gets measured, gets done.

    You have a severe immigration problem, and until you set maximum immigration targets and stick to them, you are well and truly sunk.

  33. When someone like Allan for example gets fixated by the idea that behind all world events there lies a shadowy bunch of powerful people pulling strings, it can be very powerful and difficult to refute. In that sense it shuts down debate because one side is being totally unreasonable.

    Agit – tell that to Denis Healey, Benjamin Disraeli, Woodrow Wilson, George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower et al

    ‘Denis Healey wrote:

    “World events do not occur by accident: They are made to happen, whether it is to do with national issues or commerce; and most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings.”

    How “unreasonable” of him to write that.

  34. Allan,
    that is not quite the same as saying that there is a group of people working together to control it all.
    Human experience tells us that if it can go wrong it WILL go wrong.

  35. Oh Agit – it’s not exactly the same words, but it has more or less the same meaning to the effect that Healey (an insider) has a view closer to mine than yours. And when you write “go wrong”, exactly which instances or cases do you mean?

  36. I think he meant that powerful people in positions of (usually) temporary influence or responsibility make decisions that may include people of other nations. ie international leaders, chancellors and the like.
    They make treaties they try to cooperate on various projects.

    It goes wrong as in the EUROzone. Immigration. Gordon Brown selling off our gold, Margaret Thatcher privatising our utilities, etc etc.
    Also I can see no great advantage for a group of powerful people to manipulate world events. There might be a short term ego trip rush, but after that what?

  37. “How “unreasonable” of him to write that.”

    Clearly he doesn’t mean what you do. Why would a member of a secret conspiracy announce the fact?

  38. Frank

    btw

    I’m not big on central planning on many things but when it comes to immigration from the most troubled parts of a troubled world, I’m the biggest central planner who ever lived.

    You do what works. Nothing you’ve done since 1970 or so has worked. You need to do something else.

  39. “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”

    – Denis Healey, co-founder and 30-year Steering Group member of the Bilderberg Group, where the rich and powerful conspire in secret.

  40. Pete

    All bs aside.

    When it comes to immigration, you’d be big ” central planner ” also – and you should not shrink from the term either.

  41. //Nothing you’ve done since 1970 or so has worked. //

    What makes you think immigration hasn’t worked?
    I’d say – notwithstanding certain problems – it has overall worked like a dream. It has brought Britain expertise and initiative, a young and productive workforce and opened its horizons (and vastly improved its cuisine).

    Even if this were not so evident; the fact that every country in Europe has allowed large-scale immigration over the past half century in itself suggests it must bring major benefits, or at least stave off certain economic problems.

  42. Phantom –

    By definition, putting a number, or a cap, on immigration is to centrally plan at least that part of it. I’m ok with that. I’ve said that national defence is a legitimate function of the collective, and that when immigration numbers are great enough it becomes a matter if national defence.

    I also have no problem with capping immigration at zero from certain parts of the world.

  43. It goes wrong as in the EUROzone. Immigration. Gordon Brown selling off our gold, Margaret Thatcher privatising our utilities, etc etc.

    Those didn’t “go wrong” – those were intended to happen exactly as they happened. Take Gordon Brown selling of the UK’s gold at the bottom of a market, and announcing that he intended to do so. That wasn’t ‘chance’. Brown’s senior advisor Gavyn Davies works for Goldman Sachs who had taken a position on the price of gold dropping, but it appeared that the market had already bottomed out and GS was facing losses of $billions. But Brown’s announcement caused the gold price to drop further thus freeing GS from the horns on which its greed had got it impaled.

    Thatcher’s privatisations – who owns the utilities now? Do you think that went wrong – or did it go as intended?

    Mass immigration from the 3rd-world – who gains, whose wages are forced down, why no controlled borders, why so much surveillance in our streets? If the great mass of law-abiding British had been left unmolested by the influx of 3rd-world criminality, would there be any perceived need for ‘surveillance’? Internal security not only provides the owners of the corporates with control over a population, but is also a great money earner, almost as lucrative as war.

    The Euro – sensible people stated why it would go wrong but were overruled by somebody, that being the controlled politicians. Who gains from the Euro? Well, take a look at Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Italy etc whose assets will soon be rounded-up in a fire-sale to the corporations owned by…..?

  44. //is to centrally plan at least that part of it. I’m ok with that. I’ve said that national defence is a legitimate function of the collective//

    We all confuse society with the state some time 🙂

  45. Phantom – Wouldn’t a King of England be a little hesitant to comment on immigrants. Afeter all Prince Charles’ fahter is greek and his Mom’s people came from Germany.

    I have no problem with limits on immigration and even favored nation status from some parts of the world. Actual numbers would be something someone with knowledge of what makes sense and what can be sustained or helpful would be better suited to discuss.

  46. Pete above gives a number above. As none have disagreed, we’ll pass it as unanimous.

  47. The Duke of Edinburgh is Anglo-Danish. The Queen is a direct blood descendant of every English monarch, so she’s a direct blood descendant of all the Wessex kings back to Cerdic whose reign began in 519. You don’t get much more Anglo Saxon than that.

  48. //The Queen is a direct blood descendant of every English monarch, so she’s a direct blood descendant of all the Wessex kings..You don’t get much more Anglo Saxon than that. //

    She’s also a direct blood descendenat of Diarmaid mac Murchadha, last kind of Leinster, and Brian Boru, and you don’t get much more Gaelic Irish than that.

    She’s also a direct blood descendenat of Adolf Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, Adolf Frederick I Duke of Mecklenburg and various other Adolfs, and you don’t get much more German than Adolf.

  49. I knew she was descended from Brian Boru, didn’t know about the last king of Leinster (who I would say is Brian O’Driscoll in any case).

    All in all, it looks like she’s the queen of everything.

Comments are closed.