IMMIGRATION POLICIES
Immigration has been the policy issue in the general election campaign. On the doorstep, it is unusual to find voters who are not opposed to the present scale of immigration. How have the political parties responded to this?
Labour, which is responsible for the current levels of immigration, remains in favour of mass immigration, but is claiming to have brought down the number of asylum seekers. They are also promising to introduce a points system (which they copied from the Tories, who in turn copied it from Veritas, who in turn had copied it from the English Democrats). Labour cannot claim a mandate for their mass immigration policy as they deny that there is one. But that is their policy and under Labour mass immigration will continue.
The Liberal Democrats also support mass immigration and take a more favourable view of asylum seeking than Labour. However, they also claim to favour ‘a green card system for immigration, with limits agreed by Parliament in London’ (ie not decided by the EU). The Lib Dem policy is therefore very similar to the Conservative one. However the Liberal Democrats take a more moral view regarding immigration and advocate mass immigration and asylum seeking for moral reasons.
The Conservative Party’s policy has been copied by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even Veritas (regarding the processing of asylum seekers). The Conservatives talk of ‘controlled immigration’ which can mean anything and will abdicate responsibility for the admission of asylum seekers into the UK to UN officials (who would certainly be offered bribes) and an annual vote in Parliament to set the numbers of total immigration. Many Conservatives have always favoured mass immigration and to have an annual vote in Parliament is not a commitment to the ending of mass immigration at all.
The UN have openly stated that they will refuse to cooperate. The Conservative Party policy, therefore, might make immigration more manageable, but it will not stop mass immigration and the policy is fundamentally lacking in credibility.
Veritas have cribbed the idea of processing asylum seekers overseas from the Conservatives and their policy is therefore as lacking in credibility as the Conservative one is. The commitment to give up to 1million illegal immigrants an amnesty, as a sop to the politically correct, provided that they have children is grossly irresponsible. Trying to suck up to politically correct zealots should not be the basis of the formulation of immigration policy. If immigrants are told that they need to impregnate someone in order to remain in the UK, then experience demonstrates that that is exactly what they will do.
Illegal immigrants should be deported and not given British passports.
UKIP has made quite a play on immigration. Their election address states: ‘Say No to unlimited immigration’ on the front, and ‘Stop unlimited EU immigration’ on the inside (presumably unlimited non-EU immigration is acceptable). UKIP promises to leave the EU and so regain control of our borders. But the UKIP policy is to aim to have net migration at around zero. This means that UKIP is in favour of in excess of 250,000 non-British immigrants every year (this is because of the numbers of emigrants and UKIP’s policy therefore requires an equal number of immigrants into the UK). UKIP is in favour of mass immigration.
The English Democrats were the ones to originally advocate a points system for immigration. On their website, they clearly set out their immigration policy:
The English Democrats are not interested in multiculturalism and are the only moderate party unequivocally advocating an end to mass immigration.
Labour, which is responsible for the current levels of immigration, remains in favour of mass immigration, but is claiming to have brought down the number of asylum seekers. They are also promising to introduce a points system (which they copied from the Tories, who in turn copied it from Veritas, who in turn had copied it from the English Democrats). Labour cannot claim a mandate for their mass immigration policy as they deny that there is one. But that is their policy and under Labour mass immigration will continue.
The Liberal Democrats also support mass immigration and take a more favourable view of asylum seeking than Labour. However, they also claim to favour ‘a green card system for immigration, with limits agreed by Parliament in London’ (ie not decided by the EU). The Lib Dem policy is therefore very similar to the Conservative one. However the Liberal Democrats take a more moral view regarding immigration and advocate mass immigration and asylum seeking for moral reasons.
The Conservative Party’s policy has been copied by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even Veritas (regarding the processing of asylum seekers). The Conservatives talk of ‘controlled immigration’ which can mean anything and will abdicate responsibility for the admission of asylum seekers into the UK to UN officials (who would certainly be offered bribes) and an annual vote in Parliament to set the numbers of total immigration. Many Conservatives have always favoured mass immigration and to have an annual vote in Parliament is not a commitment to the ending of mass immigration at all.
The UN have openly stated that they will refuse to cooperate. The Conservative Party policy, therefore, might make immigration more manageable, but it will not stop mass immigration and the policy is fundamentally lacking in credibility.
Veritas have cribbed the idea of processing asylum seekers overseas from the Conservatives and their policy is therefore as lacking in credibility as the Conservative one is. The commitment to give up to 1million illegal immigrants an amnesty, as a sop to the politically correct, provided that they have children is grossly irresponsible. Trying to suck up to politically correct zealots should not be the basis of the formulation of immigration policy. If immigrants are told that they need to impregnate someone in order to remain in the UK, then experience demonstrates that that is exactly what they will do.
Illegal immigrants should be deported and not given British passports.
UKIP has made quite a play on immigration. Their election address states: ‘Say No to unlimited immigration’ on the front, and ‘Stop unlimited EU immigration’ on the inside (presumably unlimited non-EU immigration is acceptable). UKIP promises to leave the EU and so regain control of our borders. But the UKIP policy is to aim to have net migration at around zero. This means that UKIP is in favour of in excess of 250,000 non-British immigrants every year (this is because of the numbers of emigrants and UKIP’s policy therefore requires an equal number of immigrants into the UK). UKIP is in favour of mass immigration.
The English Democrats were the ones to originally advocate a points system for immigration. On their website, they clearly set out their immigration policy:
‘We need to change immigration policy so that it better reflects the needs and wishes of the English people. There should be a points system for entry to the UK which is based on the Canadian model.
Points should be awarded for, among other things: educational and professional qualification; family links with England; financial resources; the ability to speak English. In other words, entry should be determined by our needs as a society and the ability of newcomers to be absorbed into the prevailing public culture. High priority should be given to creating a peaceful society which is bound together by shared values and perceptions.
Should there be an economic need for immigration it should be met by the employment of people on fixed term work permits. Our aim should be to meet the need for skilled workers from within.
International law is not fixed for all time. We should not feel bound by rules that were devised 50 years ago when circumstances were very different. Asylum seekers should seek asylum in a state adjoining or nearby the state from which they are fleeing. The wishes and interests of the English should be the dominant factors in determining asylum and immigration policies for England.
Our principle concern is to preserve and build on what is left of English cultural unity and social cohesion. The preservation of our identity and culture are at least as important as economic considerations. We do not accept the fallacious but widely publicised economic arguments for mass immigration. For the most part they greatly exaggerate the economic benefits and wholly ignore the economic, social, and cultural costs.
WE MUST REGAIN CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS
The customs and immigration services should be strengthened and laws vigorously enforced.’
The English Democrats are not interested in multiculturalism and are the only moderate party unequivocally advocating an end to mass immigration.
posted by erc @ 11:08 pm
<< Home