Sunday, 15 May 2011

A simple immigration strategy

Will Hutton in the Observer this morning struggles to defend the left's support of mass immigration against a popular and Europe-wide reaction against some immigration. Yet again, he trots out that old canard that immigration increases Europe's GDP. Yes, of course it does, but unless it also increases each nation's per capita GDP then its a negative and pointless change. 


In 2007, Channel 4 commissioned an important report from the ippr that analysed immigrants by country of origin and whether they were net contributors to or takers from the economy; in other words, whether they increased per capita GDP or decreased it. Some were clear; immigrants from the US, Australia, NZ, France, India and suchlike were positive, immigrants from Somalia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and so on were negative. Many were neutral, such as Nigeria. It isn't a conclusive document or one upon which the UK can base immigration policy - for each immigrant must be treated as an individual - but it usefully identified all the 'heads of proof' that a coherent immigration strategy needs:-

  • Is the immigrant healthy, with no pre-existing chronic medical condition?
  • Is the immigrant educated and fluent in English?
  • Will they obtain employment immediately in a occupational group for which there is a shortage of skilled or qualified Britons?
  • Are they willing and capable of integrating into a liberal Western capitalist democracy?
  • Are they capable of financially supporting all dependants, including housing, medical and educational costs?
  • Do they hold fixed and immutable beliefs that are incompatible with national security? 

If they pass these tests, the chances are that their presence in the UK will make us all marginally better off. 


Until the left come to terms with a hard-headed, nation-first approach to immigration policy based on sound economics and free of taste discrimination they will continue to flounder.  

11 comments:

greg tingey said...

Would either the Huguenots, the central European Jews (1850-1939), or the "Ugandan Asians" have fitted into these categories?
Because they ALL contributed, hugely to this country's success, didn't they.

I have an interest - I am an Huguenot

Raedwald said...

Greg - yes, as groups they all have had a very positive effect. As to the tests, they are either not relevant to a pre-welfare society or are a precursor for survival; by definition the sick died, the workless starved, dangerous aliens were killed. Those who had skills, who worked, who fitted in, who looked after themselves and their families prospered. The 'tests' in the past were a practical exam rather than a written paper - you lived, and survived, or you didn't.

Pat said...

Indeed- simply restricting access to all benefits- including free health care- to anyone who has't supported themselves, or at least survived through private support, would solve the problem. We'd be attractive to immigrants who really want to join in, and unattractive to those who dont

Anonymous said...

Restricting access to health care doesn't help in ptotecting us against immigrants who have TB.

A better measure than GDP per person would be GDP per UK-born person. That is, not "are the immigrants poor" but "do they make the rest of us richer?"

DC

English Pensioner said...

These reports are well worth reading. From Press Europ
In Denmark, "The conservative daily Jyllands-Posten revealed this report on April 28 under the headline “Restrictions on foreigners saves billions”. According to the liberal daily, the annual cost to Danish society of non-Western immigrants is put at 15.7 billion kroner (2.1 billion euros), and since the right came to power in 2001 the kingdom has saved 5.1 billion kroner (nearly 684 million euros) every year."
A longer report at Global Politician raises even more concerns which are now getting some publicity in Europe.

But why do we never hear or read anything about this subject in Britain's own media? The EDL seems to be trying to do its best, but everything seems to be stacked against them.

Anonymous said...

To put Labour's madness into context I read a report that stated we have 3% of Somalia's TOTAL population in the UK...

Gordo said...

"Would either the Huguenots, the central European Jews (1850-1939), or the "Ugandan Asians" have fitted into these categories?
Because they ALL contributed, hugely to this country's success, didn't they.

I have an interest - I am an Huguenot"

Huguenots have assimilated.

greg tingey said...

So have the "Ugandan Asians" (all non-muslims, incidentally) and the (then) c-European jews .......

Anonymous said...

Lots of assimilation will still leave you with a very dilute original. Why have immigration at all?
We didn't have assimilation or any such thing from the invadion prone french , spanish or germans as we defeated them. So what is new. .

DP111 said...

There are immigrants and there are immigrants. In the special category are Muslim immigrants, who have other motives to emigrate to non-Muslim lands. Here is a review of Sam Solomon's book.

The profound problem of Muslim immigration

EuropeNews December 26 2010
Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration
Sam Solomon & Elias Al Maqdisi ANM Publishers, 2009, 139 pp., $14.95
By Henrik R. Clausen

As the West has accepted extensive immigration from Islamic countries, unexpected social and political problems have followed. While rising crime rates, rampant unemployment and a heavy load on our much-appreciated welfare systems are severe problems in itself, a distinct and dramatically more significant problem is the subtle subversion of our free and democratic societies, also known as "Stealth Jihad".

The subversion against our societies is executed by relatively few immigrants. Most immigrants from Islamic countries do not come to the West in order tor transform free Western countries into semblances of the autocracies or theocracies they have fled from. They seek better living conditions, employment, a better future – but they do so without the intention to change their religion, and this is where things get complicated.

Retaining faith in Islam and Islamic scholars will lead the immigrants to tacitly support the subversive aims of Islamists who have also come to the West, initially as a relatively small fraction of millions of Islamic immigrants. These Islamic leaders and scholars use the Islamic teachings to destroy confidence in Western democracies, and they are astonishingly effective in achieving that aim.

Explaining how this seemingly irrational development can take place requires some history. This first and foremost means the life and conduct of Muhammad, the perfect example for the pious Muslim even today. The authority of Muhammad is absolute in Islam, be it in form of Quranic commands or the examples of conduct recorded in hadith collections, known in Islam as the 'Sunna'. Hijra, immigration, was a key element in Muhammads takeover of Yathrib, today known as Medina.

Unfortunately, the concept of Hijra is not limited in time or space to 7th century Arabia. The command as given is absolute, and remains an obligation on Muslims.

Thus, immigration is step four out of a five step plan. Sam Solomon elaborates:

So Hijra or migration is binding on all Muslims for numerous reasons; the most important being that migration is preparatory to jihad with an aim and objective of securing victory for Islam and Muslims either in another country or generally as a community.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/38496

DP111 said...

Anonymous said...To put Labour's madness into context I read a report that stated we have 3% of Somalia's TOTAL population in the UK...

There are Muslim immigrants and there are Somali immigrants - Somalis are a special case. Somalia is a failed state not because of some act of nature, but because of the character of Somalis. This is self evident, as All nations are defined by the culture and character of a people.

East Africans, Kenyans, Ugandans and Ethiopians, all regard Somalis as the pits. Somalis are regarded by E Africans as drug addled congenital criminals, prone to irrational violence.

Now we have 3% of all Somalis. Thank you New Labour for cultural enrichment.