IMMIGRATION POINTS SYSTEM
Both the Conservative and Labour parties are advocating the adoption of some sort of points system, similar to that of Canada or Australia, in order to manage immigration. However, the two parties are apparently at loggerheads on immigration despite each advocating a points system. How is this?
The fact is that those countries which operate such a system (eg Australia and Canada) are immigration countries. As also are the USA and New Zealand. These are all countries which promote immigration and have done so for centuries. They are relatively sparsely populated and need new immigrants to help develop their economies and colonise the uninhabited parts of their countries.
The UK is, in its natural state, an emigrant country. Likewise Ireland and much of Western Europe. It is these countries which sent emigrants into the new world in order to colonise and populate it. In the USA, for example, the emigrants were able to cultivate the corn belt and forge a new life for themselves.
But that has now changed. These former emigrant countries now face a never ending tide of immigrants from the third world. These third world immigrants are drawn to the UK in particular as they can claim generous benefits, work in the black economy quite easily, and also do have cultural ties with other members of the immigrant communities already resident here. Illegal immigrants also know that they are most unlikely to be deported and may even benefit from the amnesties which are routinely announced.
The overwhelming majority of these immigrants settle in England, which is not sparsely populated and is already occupied by the English. England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
A points system per se, is not an end in itself, but is a means to an end. It is a means of ranking immigrants in terms of suitability and is not a means of stopping them from entering the country. What matters is the underlying immigration policy and whether or not the party involved is either for or against mass immigration.
The points system was first advocated by the English Democrats Party (EDP), who are firmly opposed to mass immigration (see their website linked on this blog). Robert Kilroy-Silk (RKS) cribbed the policy from the EDP when he was still in UKIP. (RKS aborted plans to negotiate with the EDP and preferred the Scottish based New Party instead, and went on to form Veritas with some members from the New Party and other ex-members of UKIP.)
The Conservatives then cribbed the policy from RKS, and in turn found that Labour cribbed it from them, in order to upstage them.
But it is how the points system is applied which matters. A party which seeks to end mass immigration is going to use such a system very differently from one which is advocating an increase in mass immigration, as is Labour.
Charles Clarke blurted the truth out about Labour policy recently, when he was at a meeting in Gateshead. He said: ‘We want more migration, more people coming to study and to work. We want more people coming to look for refuge’.
It should not be forgotten that Charles Clarke is a public school Marxist, who was a Looney Lefty in the 1980s. His track record can leave no one in any doubt that he means what he says. Labour will increase mass immigration.
As for the Conservatives, they intend to abdicate responsibility to a vote in parliament once a year when the level of immigration will be set at whatever level the majority of MPs decide. It should not be forgotten that the Conservative Party contains many who favour mass immigration.
The Conservative Party also intends to abdicate responsibility to the UN to decide who enters the UK as an asylum seeker, a policy which RKS has cribbed from them for his new party Veritas. The UN has already made clear that they will refuse to cooperate with this policy (which is therefore unworkable), and if they did cooperate there is no doubt that their officials will be offered bribes as they were in Iraq by Saddam Hussein (a scandal which has led for calls for Kofi Annan to resign).
The English Democrats policy remains consistent.
To transport asylum seekers across other countries and even several continents to bring them here, is the least effective way of helping genuine refugees for reasons previously set out by the ERC and also by the Futurus document elsewhere on this site.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the English Rights Campaign is opposed to mass immigration.
The fact is that those countries which operate such a system (eg Australia and Canada) are immigration countries. As also are the USA and New Zealand. These are all countries which promote immigration and have done so for centuries. They are relatively sparsely populated and need new immigrants to help develop their economies and colonise the uninhabited parts of their countries.
The UK is, in its natural state, an emigrant country. Likewise Ireland and much of Western Europe. It is these countries which sent emigrants into the new world in order to colonise and populate it. In the USA, for example, the emigrants were able to cultivate the corn belt and forge a new life for themselves.
But that has now changed. These former emigrant countries now face a never ending tide of immigrants from the third world. These third world immigrants are drawn to the UK in particular as they can claim generous benefits, work in the black economy quite easily, and also do have cultural ties with other members of the immigrant communities already resident here. Illegal immigrants also know that they are most unlikely to be deported and may even benefit from the amnesties which are routinely announced.
The overwhelming majority of these immigrants settle in England, which is not sparsely populated and is already occupied by the English. England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
A points system per se, is not an end in itself, but is a means to an end. It is a means of ranking immigrants in terms of suitability and is not a means of stopping them from entering the country. What matters is the underlying immigration policy and whether or not the party involved is either for or against mass immigration.
The points system was first advocated by the English Democrats Party (EDP), who are firmly opposed to mass immigration (see their website linked on this blog). Robert Kilroy-Silk (RKS) cribbed the policy from the EDP when he was still in UKIP. (RKS aborted plans to negotiate with the EDP and preferred the Scottish based New Party instead, and went on to form Veritas with some members from the New Party and other ex-members of UKIP.)
The Conservatives then cribbed the policy from RKS, and in turn found that Labour cribbed it from them, in order to upstage them.
But it is how the points system is applied which matters. A party which seeks to end mass immigration is going to use such a system very differently from one which is advocating an increase in mass immigration, as is Labour.
Charles Clarke blurted the truth out about Labour policy recently, when he was at a meeting in Gateshead. He said: ‘We want more migration, more people coming to study and to work. We want more people coming to look for refuge’.
It should not be forgotten that Charles Clarke is a public school Marxist, who was a Looney Lefty in the 1980s. His track record can leave no one in any doubt that he means what he says. Labour will increase mass immigration.
As for the Conservatives, they intend to abdicate responsibility to a vote in parliament once a year when the level of immigration will be set at whatever level the majority of MPs decide. It should not be forgotten that the Conservative Party contains many who favour mass immigration.
The Conservative Party also intends to abdicate responsibility to the UN to decide who enters the UK as an asylum seeker, a policy which RKS has cribbed from them for his new party Veritas. The UN has already made clear that they will refuse to cooperate with this policy (which is therefore unworkable), and if they did cooperate there is no doubt that their officials will be offered bribes as they were in Iraq by Saddam Hussein (a scandal which has led for calls for Kofi Annan to resign).
The English Democrats policy remains consistent.
To transport asylum seekers across other countries and even several continents to bring them here, is the least effective way of helping genuine refugees for reasons previously set out by the ERC and also by the Futurus document elsewhere on this site.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the English Rights Campaign is opposed to mass immigration.
posted by erc @ 8:24 pm
<< Home