Monday, 3 August 2009

Immigration - the sore that won't heal

The Devil rightly points out that not all immigration is bad. Nor all all immigrants crowding out social housing and services, or sponging benefits. Channel 4 commissioned a study from the ippr back in 2007 that quantified the economic contribution from immigrants to the UK. Not surprisingly, French architects were not filling social housing, Indian IT specialists were not languishing on benefits and American bankers were not filling the maternity wards. Immigrants from western Europe, the US, Canada, India, Australia, Poland and South Africa were net contributors on all counts. Immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Portugal and Somalia were net takers on almost all counts, and add to these the eastern Europeans from Romania and Albania and the many Afghanis who have been recently arriving and were not picked up in the historic stats used by the ippr. In the middle somewhere are west Africans, Cypriots, Chinese and a few others.

Migration watch have shown that neither Alan Johnson's measures not the Conservatives' plans on managing immigration will cut the numbers by very many, and we're still on course for a population of 70m in a few years. The official immigrant figure of about a quarter of a million a year ignores the millions already here and uncounted, but having a major impact at local level on services.

The GLA economics unit produced a useful demographic projection of the London boroughs to 2026. What is depressing is that the greatest population growth is not amongst the groups who contribute most to the economy, but those who from the ippr's research take the most.

Alan Johnson may be intensely relaxed about the UK reaching a 70m population, but the people are not. A Yougov survey for Migration Watch found that 81% of us are worried about a 70m population; that 78% of us think Alan Johnson is out of touch with reality, and that 76% want to see immigration cut from around a quarter of a million a year to 50,000 a year or fewer.

The Devil's suggested measures to discourage immigration may appear harsh, totalitarian even. But I believe measures with this sort of boldness are called for. Our compassion will not diminish; we will donate our old clothes and shoes to workless immigrants, and soup kichens will see them fed. Switching government grants from the fake charities to the churches will see the revival of Christian missions in Newham and Tower Hamlets to provide health and medical services. And I would suggest a voluntary deportation grant of £5,000 a head with no return ever will provide an attractive alternative for many thousands.

But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater; remember all those valuable and essential migrants from France, Germany, India, Italy, the US and the Old Commonwealth, and let's acknowledge exactly who we want and who we don't.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Spot on!!!

"Migrants from France, Germany, India, Italy, the US and the Old Commonwealth, and let's acknowledge exactly who we want and who we don't", not likely to be Labour voters though, are they?

I wish the Conservatives would go this route.

Anonymous said...

1.We don't want you 2. £5000 repatriation 3. don't come back . One stage too many I fear.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Raedwald,

A nice post, though I must take issue with this:

"The Devil's suggested measures to discourage immigration may appear harsh, totalitarian even."

Saying that the state will not support you by extorting money from other people is hardly totalitarian—rather the opposite.

Although some people will see it as totalitarian—or, more likely, as "just another selfish libertarian not wanting to pay taxes"—you can bet on one thing: the kind of bleeding heart Lefty twat who says this will not be willing to dig deeper into his own pocket to make up the difference.

DK

Fausty said...

I don't think the Devil's prescription is in any way totalitarian. This is not a time when a cup of tea will cure all ills.

We're faced with a cancer which has to be surgically removed. Tea won't suffice.

Budgie said...

One area of unnecessary immigration which can be stopped immediately with no harmful consequences: arranged marriages. For an arranged marriage by definition involves no romance and no heartbreak - one arranged partner from overseas of a given class/wealth/culture must be as good as another from these shores.

Anonymous said...

Is not the purpose of immigration to provide babies that the locals wont make when they are young - and now having aged need young support cashwise.

Anonymous said...

Trouble is - we have a bunch poisonous, unaccountable, obstructive dimwit jobsworths masquerading as public servants.

They seem to think that employing more aggressive shaven headed baboons in "Police Academy" Tesco security uniforms at points of entry and aggressive "snatch squad" removal tactics are the way to go...



The sad fact of the matter is that UK immigration is a foolhardy taxpayer funded money waterfall. The people smugglers know this and use it (errm... why don't migrants want to stay in France eh?)

The people we employ to maintain the documentation and regulate the flow of migrants are blatantly not doing their jobs properly.

The present system in NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE and NOT FIXABLE in it's current form.


I feel it in my bones that some calculating swines have decided that it's the best hope to get the ID cards in place - let immigration run amok.


It is a godawful mess and it's not set to get any better any time soon.

Young Mr. Brown said...

I agree with DK, and with your good self.

However, I'm intrigued by your suggestion of "Switching government grants from the fake charities to the churches"

I'm all in favour of stopping government grants to fake charities, but a little uneasy about giving government grants to churches.

I suppose if any non-governmental organisations are to be given grants to do good works, the churches would be the best ones to receive them - but I'm sure that I'm not the only one who questions whether tax-payer's money should contribute toward the revival of Christian missions.

The financing of Christian missions is the duty of the churches.