Immigration

Unsurprisingly, Fraser made some sound points in his two recent posts on immigration. But the main lesson, surely, to be drawn from his argument is that the problem lies with British welfare policy rather than British immigration policy? Fix the former and some of the economic concerns about the latter might be reduced. Then again, how much of the anti-immigration argument is actually predicated upon economics? Or, to put it another way, who counts as an immigrant? I rather suspect that there aren’t too many people terribly exercised by Australians or Americans or Frenchmen or Irishmen holding down jobs in Britain. Which, if true, would lead one to suppose that

Here’s a disturbing report from one of the great institutions of the land: They cannot be assimilated and absorbed into the British race. They remain a people by themselves, segregated by reason of their race, their customs, their traditions and above all by their loyalty to their religion, and are gradually and inevitable dividing Britain, racially, socially and ecclesiastically… Already there is a bitter feeling among the British working classes against the muslim intruders. As the latter increases, and the British people realise the seriousness of the menace to their racial supremacy in their native land, this bitterness will develop into a race antagonism which will have disastrous consequences for

It’s hardly breaking news that the British [sic] National Party are a bunch of racist goons. But it’s a little unsettling to see a Tory MP such as Eric Pickles* suggest that “They are going to be a very serious force in British politics and the mainstream political parties have got to get their act together and start confronting them.” On that latter point, we can agree. But, again, the suggestion that the BNP are going to become a force, let alone a serious one, in British politics gives these clowns much more credit than they merit and does a grave disservice to the collective wisdom and decency of the

George W Bush seems to agree with me. This isn’t as alarming as it might sound. Here’s some of what the President had to say at his final press conference this morning: I am concerned that, in the wake of the defeat, that the temptation will be to look inward and to say, well, here’s a litmus test you must adhere to. This party will come back. But the party’s message has got to be that different points of view are included in the party. And — take, for example, the immigration debate. That’s obviously a highly contentious issue. And the problem with the outcome of the initial round of

And other oddities. for perhaps the first time ever, I find myself agreeing, in broad terms, with John Prescott. How did this happen and how, for the love of god, did Prezza end up besting my old pal Fraser Nelson? Ah, yes, immigration… As Fraser put it himself: I’ve just done a BBC1 Politics Show where they introduced me as being from both The Spectator and The News of the World. As a result of this I was savaged by the Labour-supporting audience. Perhaps vengeance for my being rude to John Prescott in the middle bit, which was off-air . I have to say Prescott came out of the exchange

Setting aside the issue of whether or not a House of Lords committee can accurately be considered “influential”… Record levels of immigration have had “little or no impact” on the economic well-being of Britons, an influential House of Lords committee has said. Well, that’s not the point. Or at least it’s not the point as far as I’m concerned. What about the immigrants themselves? Couldn’t we rejoice in their economic advancement and, one supposes (via remissions from immigrant workers), that of their home countries too? Couldn’t that be be something to be celebrated? The world doesn’t stop at the water’s edge after all and in an age in which we