UKIP IMMIGRATION POLICY
14 February 2005
Not to be outdone in the bidding for the immigration issue vote, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has made its own announcement on the issue.
UKIP’s stance on immigration has always been very adaptable, although the party went into the June EU elections last year with a reputation as being tough on immigration. But that has definitely not always been the case.
Back in July 2000, the UKIP NEC unanimously passed the Ivan Winters motion. That motion, wrongly presented as being supported by the Yorkshire regional committee when in fact that committee had firmly rejected it, made a series of politically correct assertions and recommendations: that leaflets be circulated in a ‘community language’ such as Urdu; that ‘travel to and from the UK and immigration are very difficult for Commonwealth citizens whilst persons from other EU countries have no restrictions at all’; that ‘most UKIP members if they had any politics at all before joining UKIP were probably Thatcherite Tories’ (note the analytical rigour); that UKIP should be ‘carrying out positive actions in the above areas’ (the term ‘positive actions’ is a hybrid between positive discrimination and affirmative action); that ‘the party should try to encourage ethnic candidates to stand for elections’; and that ‘the Asian community is a very close community and a breakthrough in this area and promoting stronger ties with the Commonwealth would serve the party well’.
As can be seen, UKIP has always had a complex about race and immigration, as well as a fear of being seen as right wing. The Ivan Winters motion was reflected in UKIP’s 2001 election manifesto: ‘UKIP will also redress the injustice that EU nationals can bring their families to Britain automatically, while Commonwealth immigrants have to wait years to unify theirs. UKIP supports an inclusive concept of British nationality, with common citizenship and share values’ and that ‘we could accept skilled immigrants, many of them from countries with closer historical ties to Britain than the EU’.
It has always been amazing that no one ever properly tackled UKIP about the implications of these nice sounding commitments. If the inhabitants of Commonwealth countries such as India had the same right of entry into the UK as EU citizens have, then annual immigration into the UK would be measured in millions and not hundreds of thousands, as it currently is.
After the 2001 general election, UKIP remained paralysed about the immigration issue, despite the mounting furore over the abuse of the asylum system and the massive numbers of asylum seekers. The next development was the posting of an item on the website entitled ‘Biting the Bullet on Immigration’. This item unambiguously attacked the whole rationale for mass immigration and so-called asylum seeking. However, it was removed after aggressive complaints from senior UKIP officials and was replaced by ‘Space, Not Race’, which was much weaker and considerably less popular with ordinary members (it was so weak that it had to be amended more than once after it had been put on the website).
Also during this time, Ashley Mote had been tasked by the NEC to prepare a report into immigration policy. This he duly did, and the NEC duly rejected it as being too robust. The document was condemned as having the ‘wrong tone’.
However, for the June 2004 EU elections, Ashley Mote’s views were put up on the UKIP website alongside Space, Not Race. Once again, UKIP was trying to have it both ways. UKIP wanted to get votes for being tough on immigration, but lacked the nerve to actually be so.
Now, Roger Knapman, nominally the UKIP leader, has set out UKIP’s latest immigration stance. He had previously written about immigration in UKIP’s ‘Independence News’ magazine in December 2002. He himself had then pointed out that 200,000 immigrants were entering the UK each year, excluding illegal immigration, which equated to ‘a city the size of Cambridge every six months, or, if current rates continue, some two million people over the next ten years!’
He further pointed out that the Huguenots and other refugees from Germany and Russia who Britain had admitted in previous centuries, were far fewer in number than one year’s worth of immigration at current levels.
The new UKIP policy is summed up thus: ‘The UK Independence Party would aim to approach zero net immigration both by imposing far stricter limits on legal immigrants and by taking control, at last, of the vexed problem of illegal immigration’. As both the Conservatives and Labour now are, UKIP is in favour of a points system, similar to Australia, for selecting immigrants. UKIP ‘may’ reinstate some form of primary purpose rule as well.
Whatever UKIP ‘may’ do, its ‘aim’ is that ‘net immigration’ should ‘approach zero’. The key word is ‘net’.
UKIP is not advocating an end to mass immigration, it merely believes that it will ‘aim’ to keep the level of mass immigration to the same as that for emigration.
Why?
There are approximately 7.85million people of working age who are designated as being ‘economically inactive’. 2.1million of these people say that they want a job.
There are 2.7million people claiming incapacity benefit (1million of whom are doing so citing depression or stress). A government minister has said that two thirds of these could be brought back into the labour market, one third immediately.
The fact is that there is a large reservoir of potential employees who are available to fill any shortage in employment without the need for immigration. The problem is one of training and retraining. There is no justification for these British people to be pushed out of the labour market.
There is no economic justification for mass immigration into the UK.
In 2003, the Office of National Statistics has reported that total emigration was in excess of 361,000, of which 190,000 were British and 171,000 were non-British. There was a total of 105,000 British citizens returning from abroad. Assuming that UKIP would not disbar these British returnees, then UKIP’s ‘aim’ is to allow 256,000 non-British immigrants into the UK each year. By any stretch of the imagination, this is mass immigration at a level 5 times that which compelled Enoch Powell to make his Birmingham speech in 1968.
Far from dealing with the immigration problem, UKIP aims to legitimise it. UKIP is, once again, advocating a nuance of Labour policy. UKIP has reverted to type and is, once again, advocating mass immigration on an epic scale.
Not to be outdone in the bidding for the immigration issue vote, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has made its own announcement on the issue.
UKIP’s stance on immigration has always been very adaptable, although the party went into the June EU elections last year with a reputation as being tough on immigration. But that has definitely not always been the case.
Back in July 2000, the UKIP NEC unanimously passed the Ivan Winters motion. That motion, wrongly presented as being supported by the Yorkshire regional committee when in fact that committee had firmly rejected it, made a series of politically correct assertions and recommendations: that leaflets be circulated in a ‘community language’ such as Urdu; that ‘travel to and from the UK and immigration are very difficult for Commonwealth citizens whilst persons from other EU countries have no restrictions at all’; that ‘most UKIP members if they had any politics at all before joining UKIP were probably Thatcherite Tories’ (note the analytical rigour); that UKIP should be ‘carrying out positive actions in the above areas’ (the term ‘positive actions’ is a hybrid between positive discrimination and affirmative action); that ‘the party should try to encourage ethnic candidates to stand for elections’; and that ‘the Asian community is a very close community and a breakthrough in this area and promoting stronger ties with the Commonwealth would serve the party well’.
As can be seen, UKIP has always had a complex about race and immigration, as well as a fear of being seen as right wing. The Ivan Winters motion was reflected in UKIP’s 2001 election manifesto: ‘UKIP will also redress the injustice that EU nationals can bring their families to Britain automatically, while Commonwealth immigrants have to wait years to unify theirs. UKIP supports an inclusive concept of British nationality, with common citizenship and share values’ and that ‘we could accept skilled immigrants, many of them from countries with closer historical ties to Britain than the EU’.
It has always been amazing that no one ever properly tackled UKIP about the implications of these nice sounding commitments. If the inhabitants of Commonwealth countries such as India had the same right of entry into the UK as EU citizens have, then annual immigration into the UK would be measured in millions and not hundreds of thousands, as it currently is.
After the 2001 general election, UKIP remained paralysed about the immigration issue, despite the mounting furore over the abuse of the asylum system and the massive numbers of asylum seekers. The next development was the posting of an item on the website entitled ‘Biting the Bullet on Immigration’. This item unambiguously attacked the whole rationale for mass immigration and so-called asylum seeking. However, it was removed after aggressive complaints from senior UKIP officials and was replaced by ‘Space, Not Race’, which was much weaker and considerably less popular with ordinary members (it was so weak that it had to be amended more than once after it had been put on the website).
Also during this time, Ashley Mote had been tasked by the NEC to prepare a report into immigration policy. This he duly did, and the NEC duly rejected it as being too robust. The document was condemned as having the ‘wrong tone’.
However, for the June 2004 EU elections, Ashley Mote’s views were put up on the UKIP website alongside Space, Not Race. Once again, UKIP was trying to have it both ways. UKIP wanted to get votes for being tough on immigration, but lacked the nerve to actually be so.
Now, Roger Knapman, nominally the UKIP leader, has set out UKIP’s latest immigration stance. He had previously written about immigration in UKIP’s ‘Independence News’ magazine in December 2002. He himself had then pointed out that 200,000 immigrants were entering the UK each year, excluding illegal immigration, which equated to ‘a city the size of Cambridge every six months, or, if current rates continue, some two million people over the next ten years!’
He further pointed out that the Huguenots and other refugees from Germany and Russia who Britain had admitted in previous centuries, were far fewer in number than one year’s worth of immigration at current levels.
The new UKIP policy is summed up thus: ‘The UK Independence Party would aim to approach zero net immigration both by imposing far stricter limits on legal immigrants and by taking control, at last, of the vexed problem of illegal immigration’. As both the Conservatives and Labour now are, UKIP is in favour of a points system, similar to Australia, for selecting immigrants. UKIP ‘may’ reinstate some form of primary purpose rule as well.
Whatever UKIP ‘may’ do, its ‘aim’ is that ‘net immigration’ should ‘approach zero’. The key word is ‘net’.
UKIP is not advocating an end to mass immigration, it merely believes that it will ‘aim’ to keep the level of mass immigration to the same as that for emigration.
Why?
There are approximately 7.85million people of working age who are designated as being ‘economically inactive’. 2.1million of these people say that they want a job.
There are 2.7million people claiming incapacity benefit (1million of whom are doing so citing depression or stress). A government minister has said that two thirds of these could be brought back into the labour market, one third immediately.
The fact is that there is a large reservoir of potential employees who are available to fill any shortage in employment without the need for immigration. The problem is one of training and retraining. There is no justification for these British people to be pushed out of the labour market.
There is no economic justification for mass immigration into the UK.
In 2003, the Office of National Statistics has reported that total emigration was in excess of 361,000, of which 190,000 were British and 171,000 were non-British. There was a total of 105,000 British citizens returning from abroad. Assuming that UKIP would not disbar these British returnees, then UKIP’s ‘aim’ is to allow 256,000 non-British immigrants into the UK each year. By any stretch of the imagination, this is mass immigration at a level 5 times that which compelled Enoch Powell to make his Birmingham speech in 1968.
Far from dealing with the immigration problem, UKIP aims to legitimise it. UKIP is, once again, advocating a nuance of Labour policy. UKIP has reverted to type and is, once again, advocating mass immigration on an epic scale.
posted by erc @ 5:30 pm
<< Home