by Mike Newland
Everyone now knows how decades of propaganda have made it risky to suggest that immigrants should be refused entry to Britain. Try that in the office! There will be someone who calls you out as ‘racist’ or, at the least, hints at it. Not worth the risk. Better keep quiet. Job done.
In nearly every case you’ll find a hidden motive fuelling the attack. Usually money in one way or another, which may mean money in a very direct way as with those wanting cheap labour, or indirectly among those looking for advancement within the system. Common Purpose course anyone?
The bombardment of shut-down-debate propaganda has been endless and at its worst in newspapers like the Daily Mail which plays a double game. One minute it complains that immigration is out of control and the next runs a story about outrage at some suggestion or other that something should be done.
Let’s call the above the first taboo and talk about the far less recognised second taboo.
Once someone is in the country as an ‘immigrant’ it’s near unthinkable that they should be required to leave. This is constantly implied by talk of human rights, family life (they bought a cat), and an assumption that since persecution has led them here it is guaranteed that circumstances at home will never change. The IMF, for example, says that the Somali economy is now growing rapidly and it expects that to continue. Has anyone suggested that Somalis given asylum should return? Would they not be better off in the end back in their homelands? But let’s not single out any group as the same applies across much of the board.
Immigration is spun as a one way path which cannot rightly be reversed. This, of course, betrays what is really going on – a policy of population replacement. Immigration means adding to the population. Replacement of the population within their homeland is an entirely different affair. Unsurprisingly, the system never admits that this is what is occurring even when Britons are reduced to a minority in an area of the country.
The case of an Iranian who turned himself in at a Manchester police station saying that he was an illegal and that the city was so horrible that he wished to return to Iran points up what is going on. In fact, he had indefinite leave to remain and was not an illegal. Note that ‘indefinite‘. The second taboo at work! If he himself can contemplate returning then there is no call for his stay to be deemed indefinite with the right to remain permanently built into the pie.
Every year vast numbers are admitted to Britain to work here. What for? All it achieves is to enlarge the population of a tiny country with one of the highest population densities in the world. Few of them are genuinely filling any kind of shortage of vital skills and any genuine shortages are the simple effect of an irresponsible failure to train.
Those who come here to work will often return home. Not everyone stays permanently. But as soon as the word immigrant enters the debate (usually employed interchangeably with asylum seeker) the thought that they might leave becomes forbidden.
Let’s go back to our Iranian friend. We are full up and if he wants to leave then a free air ticket would be far cheaper than paying him the benefits he said he was claiming. Rush forward government officials to arrange things! Well no actually. The police told him he’d need to find his own way home.
It’s high time the second taboo went the way the first is gradually going. There are vast numbers of people who have been admitted to this country and given rights who have no reason to remain whatever the genuineness of their original claim. Their departure would make room for those genuinely fleeing persecution and where there is no obvious other destination as in the case of refugee areas close to Syria which the Government is partly funding.
Leave to remain should always be subject to a time limit and review. Where people wish to leave they should be assisted and encouraged. If that is not always entirely convenient then nor is the position of the British people who are being systematically replaced and diluted.
A part of the second taboo is the unspoken assumption that it is unfair for anyone to be required to leave if that would mean a fall in the level of their income. What that actually means is that most immigrants are effectively defined as economic migrants does it not? We are supposed to permanently accept people who want higher incomes. So that’s a few billion more with ‘rights‘!
No one should be entitled as of right to claim permanent settlement in Britain because of their home circumstances. Britain should help but not at the expense of its own existence as a homeland for its own people.
Lord Mandelson famously said that New Labour sent out ‘search parties’ looking for more immigrants to bring in. That is a very different matter from accepting people in genuine fear of persecution. The more in numbers the better – for the benefit not of the migrants themselves but for the political benefit of his system. The Tories are doing the same and the entire contraption is conflated into ‘Britain’s moral duty’ with the two taboos tacked on and employing the weasel language politicians love.
Cameron has now informed Europe that economic migrants posing as refugees should be returned. He could make an excellent start with the reputedly one million illegal immigrants living in Britain who seem at present to have been granted a de facto permanent leave to remain.
Britain requires a repatriation agency and it should be funded from the gigantic foreign aid budget.