Immigration

A Question of Numbers or of Kind?

From our UK edition

David Aaronovitch's column in the Times today is excellent. Worthy of three cheers. I should say here that the ONS begins every such report with the explicit warning that its projections are not forecasts, as Mr [Frank] Field claims, but projections forward of recent trends.[Empasis added] When I spoke to him yesterday Mr Field essentially dismissed this as nit-picking. I think he’s wrong. ...What Mr Field didn’t point out — because his intention is propagandist, not informative — was that the 2008 projection was a reduction (albeit small) from the 2006 one. Nor did he mention that the last actual figures, for 2008, showed net inward migration of only 118,000, far below the ONS projection.

Lessons from Reagan’s Generosity of Spirit

From our UK edition

I've often written that the modern Republican party's obsession with Ronald Reagan obscures as much as it illuminates. The deification of the Gipper isn't a great substitute for addressing the particular problems the party - and the United States - faces today. Asking "What would Reagan do?" can't provide the answers to every issue. Nevertheless, there's at least one aspect of Reagan's career that all political parties might bear in mind: his generosity of spirit and, correspondingly, the empathy he felt, genuinely I believe, for people whose circumstances were very different from his own.

The Neather clarification

From our UK edition

Plenty of CoffeeHousers are mentioning the Andrew Neather revelations in various comment sections.  If you haven't seen them yourself, the story is that Neather, a former government adviser, wrote a comment piece claiming that New Labour's immigration policy was "intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."  Many reports since have taken this as confirmation that Labour's policy was exclusively politically-motivated.    In which case, it's worth highlighting Neather's latest column for the Evening Standard, in which he claims his comments have been exaggerated and misinterpreted.

Still no room for complacency about the BNP

From our UK edition

It's an odd one is today's ICM poll in the News of the World.  Most of it makes for sobering reading for the political class: it finds that two-thirds of voters think the mainstream parties have no "credible policies" on immigration, and that one-third agree with a core BNP policy on removing state benefits from ethnic minorities.  The Tories will be disappointed to see that only 20 percent of respondents think that their plan to cap immigrant numbers will work. But there are also some findings which support Alex's thesis that we shouldn't be unduly troubled by the levels of support for the BNP.  For instance - and despite all of the above - 26 percent say the Tories have the best policies on immigration, compared to 21 percent for Labour and 13 percent for the Lib Dems.

Yes, Let’s Talk About Immigration

From our UK edition

Of all the great mysteries of modern British politics the notion that no-one is permitted to talk about immigration must surely be one of the most remarkable. After all, as this excellent, persuasive, post at the Enemies of Reason makes clear  there are plenty of people and plenty of newspapers that never shut up about immigration. And they tend to view it as a bad, even wicked, thing. Indeed one could go further. The people from whom one rarely hears are those that, generally speaking, think that immigration is a good, not a pernicious, thing. Heck, consider the political parties: Labour talk about "getting tough" about immigration and "cracking down" upon it while the Tories want to put a "cap" on the number of foreigners permitted entry into the United Kingdom each year.

Tightening immigration should constitute part of compassionate Conservatism

From our UK edition

The mainstream parties’ collective silence on immigration has, undoubtedly, contributed to the BNP’s growing popularity. Nicholas Soames and Frank Field have penned such an argument in today’s Telegraph. David Cameron’s modernisation of the Conservative Party came at the expense of even mentioning immigration. Yesterday’s mind-boggling population projection should curtail the era of uncontrolled immigration: Britain cannot sustain such human and social pressure in the age of austerity. The Tory leadership might view this reality with trepidation. They should not. Limiting immigration would alleviate poverty; it equates exactly with the Tories’ broad one nation philosophy.

The trailer for Nick Griffin’s Question Time performance

From our UK edition

Is Nick Griffin's interview with the Times a sneak preview of what we can expect from him on Question Time tonight?  I rather suspect so.  His aim in it is not only to project a reasonable front – by glossing over awkward facts (his conviction for inciting racial hatred is described as "Orwellian"), and by making dubious comparisons (he likens the BNP to opposition movements in Zimbabwe) – but also to provoke and rile his political opponents.  The BNP leader sarcastically thanks "the political class and their allies for being so stupid" as to allow his appearance on QT. But the problem for Griffin is whether he can maintain the charade for the show's entire running length.

The right decision

From our UK edition

There's little more to add to Alex's take on the news that Geert Wilders has won his appeal against the Home Office decision to bar him from the UK.  While there's much about the Dutch MP which makes me feel uneasy, preventing him entry to this country always struck me as a needless and potentially inflammatory move.  Now, happily, that wrong has been righted, and there's just one question left: will Jacqui issue yet another apology?* *Ahem, of course she won't.  The Home Office is already saying that it may fight today's ruling.

Can Lady Scotland survive?

From our UK edition

The BBC understands that the UK Border Agency is expected to find Attorney General Baroness Scotland to be in “technical breach” of the rules on employing migrant workers and faces a fine. This is a civil, not a criminal offence and a government source made it clear that the Baronesses’ resignation is not being sought. But can the government’s senior law officer, who oversaw the drafting of the very legislation that has undone her, retain her position? Her resignation may not be sought, but it’s telling that Macavity’s yet to comment on this development. I suspect that Lady Scotland will 'consider her position'.

The Baroness Scotland’s housekeeper scandal exposes the mess our immigration system is in

From our UK edition

The news that the UK Border agency will launch an investigation into allegations that the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, employed an illegal immigrant is, obviously, highly embarrassing for the government. With his customary lack of style, the Tories’ attack-dog Chris Grayling commented: "This is a Government that says all small employers should be prosecuted if they don't know the immigration status of their employees and yet we have senior ministers who can't be bothered to make the checks themselves. There is a real 'one rule for them, one rule for us' attitude at the heart of this Government and it is a disgrace." That overstates the case.

John Denham’s Mosley comparison merely sensationalises race-tensions

From our UK edition

Communities Secretary John Denham has compared the English Defence League (EDL), the group that has organised protests against what it describes as the ‘Islamification of Britain’, to Oswald Mosley’s Union of British Fascists. Whilst announcing that the government plans to re-engage predominantly white working class voters who are being seduced by the BNP, Denham said: “You could go back to the 1930s if you wanted to - Cable Street and all of those types of things. The tactic of trying to provoke a response in the hope of causing wider violence and mayhem is long established on the far-right and among extremist groups.

Question time for the BNP

From our UK edition

The Beeb's admission that they have invited Nick Griffin onto a future episode of Question Time is causing quite a stir.  Two main questions are emerging from it all.  First, should the BBC give a platform to the BNP?  And, second, should other politicians appear on a show with BNP figures?  The Tories have already said they're "very happy" to put forward a shadow cabinet member to debate Griffin, while Labour are wrestling with their "custom" not to share a platform with the BNP. My take on each question is that, first, the Beeb aren't wrong to give the BNP a platform.  Personally, I find the party's views and its politics repellent, but the fact remains that British voters have given them two seats in the European Parliament.

The world over, people trafficking is the result of not addressing illegal immigration

From our UK edition

The journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee describe their experiences in North Korea in an article in the Times. I urge Coffee Housers to read it, but I was struck by the story that brought them to the Tumen River. ‘We wanted to raise awareness about the harsh reality facing North Korean defectors who, because of their illegal status in China, live in terror of being sent back to their homeland. Most of the North Koreans we spoke to said that they were fleeing poverty and food shortages. One girl in her early 20s said she had been told she could find work in the computer industry in China. After being smuggled across the Tumen River, she found herself working with computers, but not in the way she had expected.

Hannan & Powell, Round 2

From our UK edition

Danny Finkelstein says my Churchill analogy is "cute" but wrong. Churchill had his flaws but is primarily remembered for getting One Big Thing Right; Powell had his qualities but is primarily remembered for getting One Big Thing Wrong. In other words, the two aren't really comparable and my argument is wrong. I confess this thought occurred to me this morning. I should have updated my argument to make that clear. In other words, Danny is right. That said, I also think that when a man is asked who his heroes and intellectual influences are and replies Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and, in a British context, Enoch Powell it is pretty obvious that he is pretty unlikely to share Powell's views on immigration.

Daniel Hannan & Enoch Powell: Spectacular Media Stupidity Guaranteed

From our UK edition

If a politician expresses admiration for Winston Churchill do you immediately think that he's a great fan of, among other considerations, casual indifference to the Bengal famine, the use of chemical weapons in Iraq or the pulverisation and total destruction of German cities? Of course you don't. But when a politician says he admires Enoch Powell it's as if he'd decided to fill the Tiber with blood by scurrying around the country and slaughtering the children of every immigrant in the land. This is, as you might expect, also nonsense. But, lo and behold there's a mini-rumpus and a song and dance over some comments made by Daniel Hannan to reason.tv. Hannan's crime? To say that among his political heroes: "In the British context, [was] Enoch Powell ...

Oh No! The Muslims Are Coming!

From our UK edition

Sure as eggs is eggs, you can count on some folk being terribly exercised each time it is "revealed" that lots of boys named Mohammed, or some variation of the prophet's name, are being born in europe. This time it's the revelation [link fixed] that in four Dutch cities Mohammed is the most popular name for boys. Oh no! The Muslims are coming! Never mind that Mohammed is only the 16th most popular boys name in Holland as a whole, better by far to raise the spectre of an Islamic "takeover" of Dutch cities. Never mind that this sort of fear-mongering has become an annual tradition. Did you know, for instance, that Mohammed was already the second most popular boys' name in Britain? Clearly the Caliphate is on the march!

The 3% Solution & the Case for More, Not Fewer, Foreign Workers

From our UK edition

So the Tories have announced their new international development policy. Apparently it's going to be "results-based" and fit for a "post-bureaucratic age" (this latter being, mind you, the kind of phrase coined by bureaucrats). Iain Dale likes the sound of it and so does Tory Bear. I'm sure there are plenty of good ideas lurking in the new paper, but I'm also pretty sure that there's not much sign of the Tories moving towards a truly radical approach to international development: open borders. Actually, it's not quite open borders, more a question of creating a worldwide guest-worker programme. Harvard's Lant Pritchett is perhaps the leading proponent of this sort of idea.

Continuing the immigration debate

From our UK edition

My post on immigration the other week was picked up by BBC World Service, who invited me to discuss it with Lord Maurice Peston (podcast here). I regard it as one of the most important yet least discussed issues in Britain right now, and my original also raised some typically robust comments and critiques from CoffeeHousers. My point is that Britain has a dangerously dysfunctional labour market, one so flawed that when the economy expands it sucks in foreign workers rather than tackling our unemployment. I also revealed that all net job creation in the private sector can be accounted for by immigration. Anyway, allow me to respond to some of the points raised: 1. THE BORIS FACTOR.

Immigration & Welfare Reform

From our UK edition

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 the "problem" is not foreigners per se but the wrong kind of foreigner...

The Muslim Menace to Our British Nationality. For Real!

From our UK edition

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 Britain.