POPULATION DEMOGRAPHY, ETHNICITY
Demography has become the biggest story on the planet
The Spectator, 31 January 2019
[Review of Paul Morland's "The Human Tide"]
The author has a moderate bent, and doesn't claim that
population its surging, contraction and migration explains
all of human history. But it comes awfully close. ...
... Since the
1960s, writing about demography has steadily shifted from regarding high
fertility rates as tragically entrenching poverty to accepting that numbers
confer power. Not mincing words, Morland declares boldly at the outset that
'ethnicity matters politically'. He spells out that 'nations and ethnic
groups are real' and 'they matter in history'. ...
to Morland, 19th-century Europeans managed to project power, exert
influence and claim territory as a consequence of mushrooming domestic
populations whose excess these countries could afford to send all over the
globe. If Great Britain, as the historian Timothy Snyder claims, 'made the
world', it did so, Morland explains, 'by exporting people'. Ergo, people to
spare made the British Empire possible.
The Human Tide shies
from this risky inference, but it's worth asking: if Europe's sending its
extra population abroad projected power, exerted influence and claimed
territory, isn't mass migration from developing nations to the West not
currently doing the same thing? /.../ One plausible explanation for the
rise of identity politics and the ever-increasing role that race plays in
issues of the day is simply mass immigration. Numbers translate directly
into voice and clout.
For at the same time the West has now reached
'the second transition' below-replacement fertility many
developing countries, modernised much later, continue to grow, and on a
scale that makes the population of burgeoning 19th-century Britain look
like a poorly attended cocktail party. Because the primary instruments of
lower mortality and expanded life expectancy were initially of western
invention, the West has inadvertently engineered its own diminishment.
I have only one serious criticism of this excellent book, and
that's a matter of proportion. Thus far, Africa has failed to get with the
programme. Although its fertility rates have come down, they haven't
plummeted nearly as quickly as they were supposed to. Consequently, UN
estimates for the global population at which we're meant to level off, once
heading steadily downwards, now go up every year. By 2050, Africans may
total 2.5 billion, and 4.5 billion by 2100. Given demographic momentum, to
a degree these numbers are baked in. /.../ Morland devotes a scant eight
pages to this crucial continent, and dubiously Pollyanna pages at that.
The author isn't always so demure. He forcefully discounts a
popular mantra of British multiculturalists: 'It may often be said that
England has always been a land of immigration, but this is simply untrue.'
Until very recently, England and Wales have absorbed a tiny,
demographically incidental handful of Huguenots and Jews. The rise of the
population that does not consider itself white British from 2 per cent in
the 1960s to nearly 20 per cent in 2011 is 'historically unprecedented'.
... White Britons are expected to become a minority in Britain
circa 2060 or so. Starting in 1980, white Europeans in California fell from
70 per cent to 40 per cent in a mere 30 years.
CRIME YOUTHS, JAILS
More than half of young people in jail are of BME background
The Guardian, 29 January 2019
More than half of the inmates held in prisons for young people
in England and Wales are from a black and minority ethnic (BME) background,
the highest proportion on record, the prisons watchdog has said, prompting
warnings that youth jails have hit "American" levels of disproportionality.
About 51% of boys in young offender institutions (YOIs)
prisons for boys aged 15 to 17 and young adult men aged 18 to 21
identified as being from a BME background, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of
Prisons (HMIP) found.
In addition, the inspectorate found 42% of
children in secure training centres (STCs) prisons for children up
to the age of 17 were from a BME background.
of BME boys and men behind bars in YOIs in England and Wales is nearly four
times the 14% BME proportion of the wider UK population.
Lammy MP, who published a review into the treatment of and outcomes for BME
individuals in the criminal justice system in 2017, said he was shocked by
the figures, which have rocketed since he released the report, when the BME
proportion in YOIs and STCs was just over 40%. ...
said prosecutions against some BME suspects should be deferred or dropped
to help tackle the bias against them in the criminal justice system.
He said allowances should also be made for younger defendants'
immaturity and criminal records should be sealed to help former offenders
find work, adding that statistics suggested discrimination was worse than
in the US in some cases.
The inspectorate found that the proportion
of boys who identified as being from a BME background varied depending on
the establishment, from one in five (21%) at the Keppel unit in West
Yorkshire, to nearly three-quarters (71%) at Feltham in west London.
The percentage identifying as being from a BME background also
varied between STCs, from 33% at Oakhill in Buckinghamshire to 55% at
Medway in Kent.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BORDER SECURITY
Drug barons make a mockery of courts by IGNORING orders to return to ALBANIA
Daily Express, 29 January 2019
Drug lords from Albania are making a mockery of our deportation
system by returning to commit more crime after being booted out. Anyone
deported from the UK is placed on a watchlist and banned from re-entering
However, a Sunday Express investigation found several
cases where deported Albanian criminals, including high-end drug dealers,
have resurfaced in the UK, sometimes within a year of being kicked out and
in other cases multiple times. One serious criminal officials hope will not
return is Albanian Alek Dauti, 31, the ringleader of a people smuggling
network that tried to get hundreds of illegal migrants into the UK. He was
extradited to Belgium on Friday to serve a 10 year jail sentence he
received in his absence in December.
Dauti's gang used corrupt
truck drivers to smuggle men, women and children into the UK, sometimes
using refrigerated lorries.
Last week police in Blackpool said two
Albanian men were facing deportation and another was on the run, after they
raided a cannabis factory in the town.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BORDER SECURITY
Drug barons make a mockery of courts by IGNORING orders to return to ALBANIA: Comment
Daily Express, 29 January 2019
The fact that convicted Albanian and other criminals are
re-entering the UK after deportation may not surprise many, but it should
ring alarm bells in the Home Office.
If we can't keep out even
those we have thrown out as baddies, what hope is there for dealing with
illegal immigration generally? This calls attention to the Government's
failures over the monitoring and removal of foreign criminals - of whom
there are 9,000 in UK prisons and thousands more at large.
According to the National Crime Agency many of those who re-enter
the UK, after being deported, do so with false EU identity papers.
With free movement set to end after Brexit, the Government must
ensure border officials are better able to check that suspicious people are
the rightful holders of any passport.
As funding for border
functions has been cut by a quarter since 2012, is it any wonder criminals
are getting in? So, what is to be done?
Having entered the New Year
talking tough about migrants crossing the Channel in dinghies - only a
small proportion of the 70,000 illegal immigrants annually joining over a
million already here - Home Secretary Sajid Javid and Chancellor Philip
Hammond could begin by boosting the border control budget.
seven per cent of the public consider illegal immigration a serious
concern. And Mr Javid could start to restore some of the public's lost
faith in our immigration system by getting a grip of the Albanian villains
cocking a snook at our border controls.
IMMIGRATION ABROAD ISLAM, NORWAY
Muhammad is the top name in Oslo again - for the 11th year
TRT World / Turkish Radio and Television, 26 January 2019
Norway's fertility rates have reached all-time lows, risking
the country's economic stability. Muslim immigrants are keeping the labour
force alive, as the country undergoes demographic changes.
was the most popular name among male children in Oslo in 2018, for the 11th
year in a row, according to statistics released on Wednesday by the
Norwegian Statistics Department.
The name, with its many
variations, surpassed Oscar, Aksel and Jacob as it maintained its lead.
Mohammad has been the most popular name in Oslo since 2008,
reflecting a strong and growing Muslim community in the large city.
In 2017, 8.7 percent of Oslo's population identified as Muslims,
with their largest communities originating from ethnic Pakistanis, Somalis,
Iraqis and Morrocans. ...
Oslo is home to the largest immigrant
population in the country. Out of Oslo's 624,000 residents, almost 190,000
are immigrants or born to immigrant parents, making up nearly 31 percent of
the city's population. ...
The statistics department also found
evidence of demographic change underway, with fewer traditional Norwegian
surnames ending with "sen", as with as Jensen, Hansen or Andersen. Today,
"sen" surnames make up only 14.7 percent of the population, compared to
22.4 percent in 1995.
BORDER CONTROLS WALLS
In defence of walls
Spiked, 25 January 2019
A favourite pat slogan, spoken and heard ever since the 1960s,
has been 'build bridges, not walls'. It's been repeated by every student,
woke pop star and pope ever since. Its appeal has not diminished till this
day, owing to Israel's wall designed to keep out Palestinians and Donald
Trump's extended wall to keep out Mexicans.
These walls are
offensive in a superficial way. Yet one might as well equally repeat Rodney
King's famous exhortation: 'Can we all just get along?' But it's also
understandable that this phrase emerged in the 1960s, the decade which saw
the erection of that monstrous edifice, the Berlin Wall, which literally
kept people imprisoned in a state on pain of death.
But as we
celebrate the 30th anniversary of that wall's demolition this year, isn't
it time to reconsider this naive and trite phrase? Because sometimes walls
The Berlin Wall was detestable because it was designed to
keep people in, rather than to keep undesirables out. This has been the
traditional function of walls. This was the point of Hadrian's Wall and the
Great Wall of China, both constructed to prevent invasion by disruptional
Picts and Mongols. This was also the aim of the Roman and medieval city
wall, built with the view of protecting citizens from bandits and
The logic today is that the less we erect walls,
literally or in spirit, the more unsafe or unsure our countries become.
Ironically, as Douglas Murray has pointed out, there are walls of bollards
on bridges in Europe today, due to the threat posed by terrorists. ...
Walls protect us. That's why our houses have them. If you believe
walls and barriers are really that bad, I expect that you leave your front
door open all the time.
Wishful thinking over immigration
Conservative Woman, 24 January 2019
In his article in Conservative Home on Monday, Tory MP Steve
Double wrote that Theresa May had incorrectly read the public mood with
regard to immigration, and that perceptions of immigration had become more
favourable since the Brexit vote. To support his assertion, he cited the
National Conversation on Immigration (NCI). ...
Polling by Ipsos
MORI last spring /.../ did indeed find that a fifth of the public had
become more positive about immigration, but that was because nearly half
believed (EU) numbers were falling, or would fall, as a result of Brexit.
In fairness to Mr Double, a more recent poll has shown
immigration to be of relatively less concern to the public than it has been
for some years, which he has attibuted to people recognising the benefits
of immigration, as well as having faith in the government keeping its
promises to reduce net migration. Really? A 2018 YouGov poll found that
nearly two-thirds of voters think immigration levels have been too high
over the past decade. Another one by Deltapoll, conducted over the summer,
found that nearly three-quarters of the public (equivalent to 38 million)
want the Government to honour its promises to reduce net migration to the
tens of thousands.
Mr Double also appears to have missed the
findings of the open survey produced as part of the 'National Conversation
on Immigration' exercise, organised by British Future and 'Hope Not Hate',
which showed that a larger share of the public believe that immigration has
had a negative impact on the UK than those who believe the opposite ...
The 'National Conversation' asked a lot of questions, which
elicited answers that suggested participants had a nuanced view of migrants
and their contributions, but this is hardly a revelation. ...
problem we at Migration Watch UK had with the 'National Conversation'
wasn't so much the questions that were asked but those that were not. While
it did ask people if they thought it should be a priority to reduce overall
numbers as well as whether the target should be kept or replaced with
multiple targets, there was no reference in the polling section to the
current and recent scale of immigration or any question about whether
participants considered this to be too high or whether it should be
It is clear that a great deal of time and effort by the
'National Conversation' organisers went into talking to a large body of
people. However, what they appear not have done was to listen to those they
conversed with. In one section, the paper suggests that one of the
Government's tasks is to 'secure public consent' for immigration (p7). ...
Brexit, of course, has no bearing on immigration from outside the
EU, and this is now at its highest since 2004. Non-EU net migration
constitutes three-quarters of all non-British net inflows. ...
government and many MPs (Steve Double is far from a lone voice) seem intent
on glossing over the public's deeply felt concerns about the serious
challenges posed by unabated immigration. ...
resulting rapid rate of population growth, 80 per cent of which has been
due to direct and indirect immigration since 2001, adds huge pressures on
infrastructure and public services. Mr Double and his colleagues may choose
to brush aside public disquiet at such a state of affairs but the truth is
that they are either engaging in wishful thinking or they are woefully out
of touch. Perhaps both.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ENGLISH CHANNEL
3,000 migrants desperate to cross Channel will not be deterred by Border Force patrols, say charities
Daily Telegraph, 23 January 2019
Some 3,000 migrants are in northern France and Belgium
"desperate" to get to the UK and will not be deterred by Britain's Navy and
Border Force patrols, refugee charities have told MPs.
Moseley, Founder of Care4Calais, told the Home Affairs Select Committee the
French policy of dispersing migrants from Calais had failed to stop
thousands continuing to seek to get to Britain with many saying they would
"do anything" to cross the Channel.
The appalling conditions, with
many sleeping out in the open after persistent police raids on any
makeshift camps, was driving more to Britain rather than deterring them,
she said. ...
She added: "We were told the closure of the camps
would stop people coming to Calais, trying to cross the Channel. It
Maddy Allen, field manager of Help Refugees, said the
Border Force patrols and deployment of HMS Mersey were "not acting as a
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION POLITICS
Dinghies of migrants are small part of 'significant wedge' of illegal migration, says Director of Migration Watch UK
talkRadio, 22 January
Neil Anderson, Executive Director of Migration Watch UK has
said that reports of illegal migrants attempting to cross the Channel in
dinghies are a "small front-end of a significant wedge".
23 migrants were intercepted by the Border Force in the English Channel on
Sunday, bringing the weekend total for arrivals to almost 40.
Anderson told talkRADIO's Mike Graham: "In terms of immigration and illegal
migration, a lot more needs to be done.
"It is very easy to
concentrate on migrants coming over in dinghies and we are hearing about a
few dozen being picked up but this is very simply a very small front-end of
a significant wedge." ...
Mr Anderson added that there had been no
"political will" to invest in resources at the UK border.
thing we can say for certain is that there are serious resource issues with
the border force," he said.
"Basically there has to be the
political will and willingness to invest in the appropriate resources in
order to address this very serious problem."
A declining population may not always be bad for the economy
Daily Telegraph, 22 January 2019
Trade wars. Currency movements. Trade balances. Normalising
interest rates. Combating climate change and poverty. Year after year, the
G-20 discusses the same narrow range of issues, never agrees on very much
and follows up on even less with any real action. But this year might just
be different. The Japanese are taking the chair and, to their credit, they
have decided to put something that genuinely matters at the top of the
agenda, namely demographics.
Even more strikingly, they are
challenging a cosy consensus of the last couple of decades. Most mainstream
economists and policymakers take it for granted that a declining population
is bad for the economy and we need to do all we can to reverse it. But the
Japanese are starting to argue that it may not be true. Technology might
mean that we need fewer people, while all the services required by the
elderly might actually stimulate demand. If true, policies to combat an
ageing population might be a big mistake. ...
Haruhiko Kuroda, the
governor of the Bank of Japan, kick-strated the debate with a sppech that
had the not-completely snappy title Demographic Changes and Macroeconomic
... It's possible, he argued, that an ageing
population could be completely fine. Rapid progress in technology, such as
robotics and artificial intelligence, means that we might need far fewer
workers than in the past, while improving productivity (indeed, slightly
oddly, at the same time as we worry about not having enough workers, we
also worry about what to do about mass unemployment created by robotics).
In fact, a shortage of workers will put pressure on companies to improve
... The conclusion? A falling population is not
necessarily as bad for the economy as usually assumed. More provocatively
still, ageing nations might be able to outperform younger ones.
That is of course especially relevant to Japan, where the working
age population peaked in 1995 and its total population in 2008. Unlike just
about every other major country, Japan has not tried to stem its declining
numbers through immigration, remaining relatively closed to outsiders.
MULTICULTURALISM AUSTRALIA, WESTERN CIVILISATION
Western Civ: it's not just for white people anymore
Spectator Australia, 19 January 2019
When the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation generously
offered to fund 'Western Civ' courses at Australian universities, critics
at the ANU and University of Sydney inevitably expressed their gratitude
with accusations of racism. They say that Western Civ. has no place in a
multicultural society. Teaching Western Civ. is somehow construed as an
insult both to indigenous and immigrant Australians, which, when you think
about it, really includes just about everyone.
Racism doesn't seem
to be such a problem for the University of Wollongong, which has agreed to
host the first Ramsay Centre degree, to be called the Bachelor of Arts
(Western Civilisation). In fact, it will create a new school within its
faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts just for the occasion. That's
right: to find Western civilisation in Australia, head to Wollongong.
But the idea that Australians of Chinese, Indian, or Aboriginal
backgrounds are somehow congenitally non-Western is itself racist. The idea
that Chinese, Indian, and indigenous students of any nationality would not
want to enrol in a Western civilisation course is worse than racist
There's nothing racist about teaching an
Australian medical student of Chinese descent Western medicine instead of
traditional Chinese medicine, Australian law instead of Chinese law. A
course in Western civilisation is no different. It's not racist to offer
Western Civ. It's racist not to offer it if multiculturalism is
offered as the excuse. ...
Australian universities certainly should
celebrate Australia's and the world's many cultures. Everyone
should study a foreign language, admire the world's artistic heritage,
travel a bit, and sample as many as possible of the world's distinctive
cuisines. Australia is blessed to be a country of many cultures, and they
are all worth experiencing. But our universities should teach our own
civilisation, first, foremost, and perhaps even exclusively. After all,
it's the only civilisation we have.
BORDER CONTROLS WALLS
Donald Trump claims 77 major border walls have been built around the world with 800 miles of barriers across Europe
The Sun, 18 January
Donald Trump tried to beef up his argument for building a wall
along the 1,933-mile US-Mexico border by claiming similar structures have
already been erected across the globe.
The president tweeted that
77 major border walls currently exist and that 800 miles of barriers "stop
crime" in Europe.
He also tweeted that 45 countries were in the
process of "planning or building walls". ...
The tycoon wrote:
"Over 800 miles of Walls have been built in Europe since only 2015.
"They have all been recognized as close to 100% successful. Stop
the crime at our Southern Border!"
Trump appears to be basing his
claims on analysis by USA Today, who cited the UN Refugee Agency for
statistics on border walls across the globe. ...
It added that
since Europe's migrant crisis erupted in 2015, "at least 800 miles of
fences have been erected by Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia,
Slovenia and others".
IMMIGRATION ABROAD CANADA
Don't ever question mass immigration or you'll be instantly racist
National Post, 16 January 2019
The National Post has run a series of editorials noting that
our legal immigration channels work well, but the issue of border migration
is eroding public confidence in immigration. ...
This past weekend,
The Globe and Mail's senior political columnist, John Ibbitson, published a
buoyant endorsement of the government's current immigration policy
(continuing high rates) headlined, "Immigration's benefits are a matter of
I asked Herbert Grubel, professor of economics
(emeritus) at Simon Fraser University, and senior fellow of The Fraser
Institute specializing in immigration, for his opinion about Ibbitson's
Grubel notes that the average income taxes paid by
immigrants since 1986 have been about one-half of those paid by
non-immigrant Canadians. Yet immigrants absorb the same value of government
services (not more, as some people would have you believe), so the
difference between what immigrants pay in and take out amounts to not less
than $5,000 a year per person, he calculates. Do the collective math and
Grubel estimates that it comes to an annual $30 billion payout.
Neither Grubel nor I nor any reasonable Canadian believes
immigration is a bad thing in itself. We're all for it. ...
what happens if the number of immigrants should exceed the capacity of the
country's ability to absorb them? It isn't orderly immigration that sets
many Canadians' teeth on edge; it is mass immigration promoted as a good in
and of itself without regard to our actual present and future needs or
interests. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants now arrive here each year.
In Vancouver alone they require 300 housing units every week. This can only
drive up housing costs and add to the crowding in our hospitals. It can
also reshape the cultural ecology of old neighbourhoods, which residents
seem generally fine with when it happens more naturally over time, but find
very jarring when it happens with unsettling rapidity.
that even raising any "cultural" factor like that is a red flag to those
progressives who insist that culture is a construct of privilege and trying
to protect the culture we have is an act of bigotry. But discussing it
shouldn't be off-limits. People all over the world desire to live in Canada
because of its stability, prosperity, gender equality, excellent quality of
life and respect for the law. All of these national qualities are
downstream from culture. It is perfectly legitimate to worry that high
rates of immigration to Canada could undermine the very tenets of equality,
freedom and justice, those products of our own culture, that attract so
many in the first place. Of course, even the words "our own culture" are in
themselves divisive: to many progressives they are a shibboleth for
oppression; to me and my more conservative friends they are, relative to
all other cultures, words that evoke pride, yet we feel anxiety saying
Often, we also feel like stooges of politicians who claim to
be focused on immigrants' value to Canada, but who are really focused on
immigrants as voters. And we feel frustrated because rational discussion of
immigration does not seem possible when any and all objections are met with
mantras like "diversity is our strength" at the top. And because we are not
allowed to talk about these things without incurring charges of racism.
IMMIGRATION ABROAD DENMARK
Denmark: "In One Generation, Our Country Has Changed"
Gatestone Institute, 16 January 2019
Turkey has been extremely active in ramping up its activities
in Denmark, apparently as part of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's
plan of strengthening Islam in the West. Denmark already has around 30
Turkish mosques out of approximately 170 mosques in total as of end of
2017. In 2006, there were 115 mosques in all of Denmark an increase
of nearly 50% in little more than a decade.
A recent government
study, "Analysis of children of descendants with a non-Western background",
shows that there continue to be huge problems with assimilating immigrants
into Danish society. ...
Today, there are roughly 500,000
immigrants and descendants of immigrants in Denmark. The cost to the Danish
state is 33 billion Danish kroner per year ($5 billion or 4.4 billion
euros), according to the Danish Ministry of Finance. It is estimated that
in 2060 there will be nearly 900,000 immigrants and descendants of
immigrants in Denmark, according to Denmark's official statistical bureau,
Danmark's Statistik. Denmark currently has a total population of 5.8
million people. If the lack of integration persists in the next generation
of descendants of immigrants, Denmark is looking at a significant societal
problem to which no one appears to have a solution.
Least of all,
Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen. In his New Year's speech, he
said that things are "going well" in Denmark. /.../ "When I was in high
school, he also said, "there were around 50,000 people with a non-Western
background in Denmark. Today, there are almost half a million. In one
generation, our country has changed". The country did not just "change".
Danish politicians, with their policies, changed it.
MULTICULTURALISM ISLAM, USA, EUROPE
Rep André Carson Predicts Sizable 'Muslim Caucus' By 2030. Is He Correct, And Will It Matter?
Democratic Rep. André Carson made news last week by
predicting that there could be as many as 30 to 35 Muslims in Congress and
possibly even a Muslim president or vice president by the year 2030.
Speaking to attendees at a "Community Congressional Reception"
hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Thursday, the
Indiana congressman welcomed newly elected Representatives Ilhan Omar and
Rashida Tlaib - both of whom were in attendance and spoke later - and
celebrated the likelihood that their election victories were just the tip
of the iceberg that's to come.
"It's more than just about having
three Muslims in Congress," said Carson. "I think symbolically it has great
value, but I won't rest until 2020 we have five more members of Congress;
2022 and 24, we have 10 more Muslims in Congress. In 2030 we may have about
30, 35 Muslims in Congress." ...
... PEW Research predicts the
Muslim population in the United States could reach 8.1 million by 2050. If
so, it would comprise 2.1 percent of the total population, almost twice the
current 1.1 percent share. Sounds reasonable. However, the same article
acknowledges that the Muslim population "has been growing rapidly" from its
originally small base due to "higher fertility rates among Muslim Americans
as well as the continued migration of Muslims to the U.S." ...
Thanks to its physical proximity to Muslim countries so many are
desperate to leave, Western Europe is in an entirely different situation.
According to PEW Research, the share of Muslims on the continent grew from
19.5 million to 25.8 million (from 3.8 percent to almost 5 percent) from
2010 to 2016 alone. "By 2050, the share of the continent's population that
is Muslim could more than double, rising to 11.2% or more, depending on how
much migration is allowed into Europe," writes PEW, adding that even if
migration were "permanently halted" (something we all know probably won't
happen anytime soon), the "relative youth and high fertility rates" of
Muslims currently living in Europe would still cause the population to rise
to 7.4 percent.
Some countries project even higher in 2050, should
migration continue at current rates - Germany at 19.7 percent, UK at 17.2
percent, France at 18 percent and Sweden at 30.6 percent.
isn't projected, and what isn't generally spoken of in polite circles, is
where things go from there. ...
Yes, most individual Muslims are
doubtless good people who, like most immigrants, simply want the best for
themselves and their families. But you can do your own research and come to
your own conclusions on the virtues and drawbacks of Muslim majority
countries. (I will ask this though - If they are so great, why are so many
people itching to leave them?)
You can also decide for yourself
whether or not you want to live in one.
grandchildren and great-grandchildren, on the other hand, may not be so
ASYLUM IRANIANS, UK, FRANCE
Proof Britain IS a soft touch for migrants: We let 63 per cent of asylum seekers from Iran IN...while France keeps 69 per cent OUT
Abul Taher and Peter
Mail on Sunday, 13 January 2019
Britain was last night branded a 'soft touch' for accepting far
more Iranian asylum-seekers than France does.
Figures obtained by
The Mail on Sunday show the UK grants refugee status to almost two-thirds
of those who arrive from Iran. By contrast France takes in only one in
And even those refused asylum in Britain are highly unlikely
to be kicked out, analysis of official data shows. ...
of Deddington, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: 'The British asylum
system is less stringent than the one in France and this is partly why
people are trying to come through Calais into Britain and not apply in
An analysis of Home Office data by Migration Watch found
that about 2,500 Iranians applied for asylum in the UK each year between
2008 and 2017, ...
In the past year, 63 per cent of the cases ended
with claimants being granted asylum, discretionary leave or humanitarian
protection. Only 37 per cent were rejected. ...
For the past five
years, an average of only about 100 failed applicants have been forcibly
removed or chosen to leave per annum less than four per cent of the
Refugee groups say that once an Iranian loses a bid to
remain on appeal, they often abscond and work in the black economy or their
lawyers submit a fresh asylum application which could take years to
The asylum rejection rate for Iranians is much higher in
France the country where all of the Calais migrants could have
applied for asylum.
Latest figures from Eurostat, the EU
statistical body, show that in 2017, France rejected 63 per cent of Iranian
asylum seekers at first decision and ordered them to leave the country. In
the first three quarters of 2018, that rose to 69 per cent.
French government source said the rejection rate for Iranians is similar to
the overall rate for all asylum seekers in France, which stands at around
70 per cent.
IMMIGRATION ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COSTS
We MUST control immigration and its costs both economic and social
Iain Duncan Smith and Neil MacKinnon
Sunday Express, 13 January
For many, a key plank of the support for Brexit at the
referendum was the impact of uncontrolled immigration into the UK.
Voters worried about the resulting negative impact on their access
to public services provision in terms of housing, GP appointments,
educational provision, social care and effects on jobs availability. It has
long been an article of faith for supporters of free movement that all
migration increases economic well being. However, studies apparently
supporting this view have conflated the economic effects of skilled,
better-educated and more highly-paid migrants with that of unskilled
The UK spends about £4 billion a year providing
housing and other social benefits to EU migrants.
Free Trade (EFT) research has shown that it is uncontrolled, unskilled
migration that imposes costs on the UK's public purse, as well as on local
This research estimates that the cost in supporting EU
unskilled migrants is about £3500 per year per adult migrant.
In effect, the taxpayer provides a wage subsidy of about 20 per
cent to the average unskilled EU migrant.
There is no dispute about
the positive impact of skilled labour in contributing to the UK economy.
Furthermore, these effects increase in areas of dense migrant
Local communities hosting large EU and non-EU immigrant
populations face higher costs without compensation, as well as declining
housing, health and educational standards.
For example, EFT
research found that in a region like Leicester, which has the densest
immigrant population in the UK, the burden of unskilled immigrants per head
in the local community costs £287 annually, or about £6 per
This equates to around 1 per cent of average UK
household disposable income per head.
In addition, there is
evidence of differential impacts across different UK-born groups with more
negative effects for those with lower levels of education.
effects are found on the earnings of UK lower-skilled workers.
percentage point increase in the EU-born working age population ratio can
reduce UK-born wages for the lower-skilled by up to 0.8 per cent.
Thus, uncontrolled immigration is a key economic issue, never mind
a political one.
An equally important aspect of the economic issue
is that UK industry now has one of the poorest records for investment in
training, technological innovation and automation.
Such has been
the effect of uncontrolled migration in the UK that Centre for Social
Justice research shows that only 15 per cent of those who start work in
entry level jobs will progress past that level in their working lives.
Similar effects exist even amongst skilled jobs. ...
has the highest percentage of foreign-trained doctors of any European
country about three-times that of France, Germany, or Spain.
ASYLUM ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, DEPORTATION
Only one in three failed asylum seekers end up leaving Britain as the others vanish into the 'black economy', damning report reveals
Mail, 11 January 2019
Only one in three failed asylum seekers gets removed from
Britain in a system 'rife with abuse', a damning report has revealed.
Not only does this 'corrode' trust in the rules, but it also
provides an incentive to migrants to try to reach the UK illegally, a
former Home Office chief warned.
David Wood, head of immigration
enforcement until 2015, sets out his findings today in a 74-page report for
the think-tank Civitas. ...
After analysis of Home Office figures,
Mr Wood said that between 2010 and 2016, 80,813 people were refused
sanctuary or withdrew their asylum applications. Of these, only 29,659 were
deported just 36 per cent.
There was also a growing backlog
of cases where people waited longer than six months more than
tripling from 4,081 at the start of the decade to 14,306 in 2017.
... Mr Wood said: 'Once migrants reach the UK they are usually here
to stay whether they have a valid claim to be here or not.
means that these numbers add to an ever-growing number of migrants in the
country who have no lawful entitlement to be here.
the failure to deal with this situation provides an incentive to further
attempts to come to the UK by people who have no right to be here.' Under
the 1951 Refugee Convention, those seeking refuge from war or persecution
can be granted asylum. UK rules allow unsuccessful applicants to appeal.
Guidelines say that failed asylum seekers should be detained only
if deporting them is a realistic prospect. But Mr Wood said more should be
done to speed up processing applications and to boost removals of those who
are declined sanctuary.
He said the initial decision-making process
should be streamlined, rather than subjecting every applicant to a lengthy
interview. For instance, if it is established that someone is fleeing a
warzone, they would automatically be entitled to asylum, leaving officials
free to work on more complex cases.
Applicants should be made to
take lie detector tests to quickly identify areas of their story that might
be fabricated, he suggested.
More failed asylum seekers should be
detained if travel documents can be obtained from their home country, he
added, meaning they do not escape. If a nation is refusing to provide
paperwork, the failed refugee should simply be put on a flight there to be
dealt with by UK consular staff.
Mr Wood said: 'It is an important
principle that people fleeing persecution should be given refuge by
countries in a position to offer it. But where asylum processes are being
used as a way of facilitating economic migration it is essential to be able
to quickly and efficiently distinguish between the two, in order to ensure
those entitled to help receive it quickly, and to ensure that UK citizens
do not lose faith and support for a system that is rife with abuse.'
POLITICS PARLIAMENT, UN GLOBAL COMPACT ON MIGRATION
Parliament REFUSES Petition to Reject UN Migrant Pact: 'Already Been Agreed'
Breitbart, 11 January 2019
The British Parliament has refused to debate a petition to
reject the UN compact on migration as it "has already been agreed by the UK
The petition, which has nearly 130,000 signatures,
called on the Government to follow countries like the United States,
Hungary, and Australia and reject the United Nations Compact for Safe,
Orderly, and Regular Migration, which is the first attempt at the "global
governance" and institutionalisation of migration.
has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition because the UN Global
Compact on Migration has already been agreed by the UK Government," said
"The final text of the Compact was agreed by the UK
Government in July last year. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in
December," it added, before claiming that the compact is "not legally
binding and cannot compel the UK Government to change its own immigration
policies" despite legal experts warning that the agreement exists in a
legal "grey area" and could be used to interpret national immigration law.
While Britain committed to the agreement at the Intergovernmental
Conference in Marrakech, Morocco, on December 10th, the minimum number of
signatures needed to trigger Parliament's Backbench Business Committee to
consider it for a full debate 100,000 had been reached a week
before then, with Parliament only rejecting the debate Wednesday.
POLITICS PUBLIC OPINION, SCOTLAND
Scots reject SNP call for immigration powers
The Times, 10 January 2019
Nicola Sturgeon's desire to secure control of immigration in
Scotland has been dealt a blow by a survey showing that most Scottish
people oppose the idea.
The first minister launched a fresh bid
this week for Scotland to take charge of its own borders policy, arguing
that the country was in desperate need of boosting its working-age
population with migrants from the EU.
However, a survey for
Britain's leading independent social research institute has shown not only
that Scots do not share this view but they are also sceptical about
allowing freedom of movement to continue from Europe after Brexit.
Mass Immigration And The Growth Of Inequality
Social Europe, 8 January 2019
The claim that immigration is economically beneficial appears
to be an article of faith amongst those who consider themselves
progressive. However, mere changes in total GDP often mean little in terms
of the lived reality of society. Much more important is whether or not mass
immigration changes the social structure and the pattern of economic
Economic inequality (in the distribution of income and
wealth) has been growing in virtually every developed society. It is clear
that there is no single cause, but one important driver is changes in the
occupational structure. In some countries, but especially in the UK and the
USA, occupational growth has polarised: there are more well-paid
high-skilled jobs, there are more low-paid jobs, but there are fewer
moderately well-paid secure jobs in the middle.
A growing social
science research suggests that the reason for the existence of low-paid
jobs has been precisely the availability of a large pool of immigrant
labour. Low-paid jobs have expanded simply because there are people
prepared to do them. If this labour supply did not exist and, crucially, if
there was no alternative labour supply, then the jobs would not exist. The
argument that immigrants are 'needed' to fill existing jobs takes the
existing jobs and hence the occupational structure for granted;
furthermore, it accepts that immigrants are the only possible source of
In some sectors enterprises' business model
depends upon paying low wages. The transformation of agriculture in the USA
and more recently in the UK has involved a shift to forms of production and
even to crops that are only viable because of low wages. ...
the 1980s domestic servants were declining in numbers. Today professionals
and managers expect to employ domestic labour to clean their houses, mind
their children, etc. These jobs are overwhelmingly taken by immigrants who
are often illegals. ...
This relationship between mass immigration
and occupational change cannot be generalised to all periods and places.
The mass European migration in the second half of the 19th century to the
USA and other areas of new settlement did not have this result, nor in fact
did the mass immigration to Western Europe in the post-world war period. It
is, however, clear that today those who call for 'open borders' the
unrestricted entry of unskilled workers into the EU are facilitating
a more polarised occupational structure, more low paid workers and greater
social and economic inequality.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION POLITICS, ANTI-RACISM
How immigration makes us all irrational
Washington Examiner, 7 January 2019
Some 300 men they are almost all men, and seem to be
mainly from Iran have tried to reach Britain in small boats since
November. That number is not large when we consider that around 7,500
people claimed asylum in the UK during the same period. Still, dinghies
make good photographs, and news is slow at this time of year, so British
tabloids were quick to proclaim a "crisis." ...
all sides irrational. To redeploy Royal Navy vessels to the Channel, as
Britain is now doing at a cost of $25,000 a day, is an absurd
over-reaction. If the UK truly wanted to reduce illegal immigration, it
would spend an equivalent sum of money on ensuring that deportation orders
were properly enforced. ...
Every bit as irrational is the reaction
of the virtue-signaling Left. Most of us agree that a measure of controlled
and legal immigration can benefit a country. Left-wingers are perfectly
within their rights to argue that immigration policy should be guided by
compassion rather than GDP growth that we should, in other words,
count poverty and desperation as qualifications rather than just economic
utility. But how, on those grounds, can you possibly justify a system that
allows a handful of would-be settlers to jump the queue by paying
If anything, the Channel crossing belongs in a
Darwinian science-fiction novel. Some futuristic dystopian state might seek
to improve its genetic stock by closing its borders, knowing that only the
shrewdest, hardiest and most determined migrants would attempt the sea
journey. How have progressives now come, in effect if not in intention, to
support such a policy? How have they reached the point where they want to
contract out immigration policy to criminal gangs?
The answer, I
suspect, has to do with changes on the Left since the late 1960s in
particular the elevation of anti-racism as the supreme virtue, the card
that trumps feminism, free speech, secularism and everything else. There
are people in Britain, as in the United States, who struggle to see past
the color of the would-be migrants' skins. A few of these people are white
supremacists. Many more are well-meaning liberals who are so determined not
to give succor to racists that they end up backing idiotic policies from a
tribalism of their own. In Britain, this means agitating to admit the boat
people. In the United States, it means arguing that a gang of Hondurans who
pitch up at the border should be allowed to elbow aside those who have
applied properly and legally.
People-smuggling is a huge industry,
and it grows larger every day. Rising aspirations and improved technology
notably smartphones with both a GPS function and the ability to
transfer credit are triggering mass movements of peoples. Wealthy
countries need to work out how to deal with migratory pressures never
before encountered in peace-time.
They need to accept that human
institutions are necessarily imperfect and that, under any conceivable
system, some rogues will get in while some deserving applicants are kept
out. That is not an argument for abandoning all your rules. On the
contrary, it is an argument for enforcing them properly.
TERRORISM EUROPE, FRANCE
Report: Nearly all terror attacks in France carried out by radicals already known to police
NBC News, 6 January 2019
The vast majority of terror attacks in France were carried out
by Islamic radicals who had been known to police or intelligence services,
according to a new report by a global security think tank.
Bratislava-based GLOBSEC examined 22 terror incidents in France
since 2012. Nearly 80 percent of the people behind those attacks had been
on a terror watchlist, and 97 percent had been on the radar of authorities,
according to the firm's new analysis, obtained by NBC News.
figures included Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, career criminals with
long records who killed 12 people in January 2015 in the offices of the
satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
are likely to bolster the longstanding criticism leveled at France and
other European countries that authorities are not doing enough to prosecute
and imprison those who pose a threat. ...
"The main issue
throughout Europe is the sentencing, which is extremely lenient and also
allows for terrorists/jihadists to be freed quite early for 'good
behavior,'" said London-based terror expert Olivier Guitta, founder and
managing director of the security firm GlobalStrat.
Of 78 people
suspected of carrying out the attacks, 49 percent had previous criminal
convictions, including 19 percent who were repeat offenders, the report
"What we are experiencing in Europe is very much colonisation" [part 1]
Techne Aletheia, 6 January 2019
Renaud Camus, writer and president of the National Council of
Resistance, is known for popularizing the notion of the 'Great
Replacement', a call to fight the civilization and cultural change that,
according to this author, is already in process in Western societies. We
talked with Camus to know in greater detail his positions on this
You are known for making popular the notion of the
'Great Replacement', what does this notion mean concretely? It is a
negative idea and how did you arrive at it? Also, what encourages you to
maintain this struggle and not fall into pessimism?
It is a
very negative idea indeed. Great Replacement, the change of people, which
implies the change of civilisation, is the crime against humanity par
excellence (if one dares say...) of the XXIst century. In the words of
the communist Carribean poet Aimé Césaire, mayor of
Fort-de-France, in Martinique, it is a genocide by substitution.
Césaire was of course speaking of something else, the replacement of
Carribbeans in Martinique by people from France, French civil servants
mostly. But his strong phrase applies even more to the replacement of
Europeans by Africans in Europe.
Pessimism would be logical, of
course. Ethnic substitution is already very advanced, and we are fighting
against very strong adversaries, not only the colonisers but people who
want and organise the colonisation, and control the media, the schools and
the tribunals, that is: people's minds. However the very horror of what is
happening is a very strong enticement not to give up. No people can accept
that: its own obliteration.
What are the factors or causes that
make this 'Great Replacement' possible? Is it a phenomenon that occurs only
in France, western countries or the whole globe?
replacement of population occurs mostly in Western countries, Europe and
North America, even though there are immigrants' moves all over the world.
To-day Replacism is one of the two giant totalitarianisms
competing for the mastery of the world the other one being of course
Islamism. Those two are rivals but there is between them, for the time
being, a kind of monstruous temporary alliance, a sort of long
German-Soviet pact, like the short-lived non-agression pact between Hitler
and Stalin in 1939. Replacism and Islamism both think they can use the
other to their own interests, and indeed they do, even though on both sides
there are adversaries to the pact. ... ...
The tragedy in Western
Europe is not the influx of citizens from the former Soviet Bloc. It is the
permanent pouring out on one continent of the population of another, namely
Africa, be it Muslim North Africa or Black Africa.
"What we are experiencing in Europe is very much colonisation" [part 2]
Techne Aletheia, 6 January 2019
I understand that a solution you propose to solve this
dilemma is the reemigration or change of migratory flows, exactly how would
this work and wouldn't this procedure be a burden for the native taxpayers?
There is no other solution to the invasion, colonisation
and foreign occupation of Europe that the reversal of invasion,
decolonisation, the departure of the occupying forces. No colonisation has
ever ended without the departure of the coloniser. And what we are
experiencing in Europe, whatever denials notwithstanding, is very much
colonisation. Europe is infinitely more colonised by Africa that it ever
colonised it itself. And the colonisation of Europe by Africa is much more
serious and profound that the former colonisation of Africa by Europe
because it is demographic: it implies massive transfers of population,
which the former colonisation did not. There is no other issue that
Remigration. And even if it cost a fortune to the native taxpayers it would
have to be done because it is a matter of life and death for the very
existence of the nation as a nation, of the civilisation as civilisation,
already half destroyed. But it would not cost a fortune. /.../
Occident [the West] is the first civilisation in the history of
humanity which is paying a fortune to engineer and realise its own
conquest, its own subjection and destruction. Moreover, saving the taxpayer
money would be the biggest inducement to remigration. If the replacers were
not given a lot of money to make children in Europe, were not paid just to
be there, not offered a lot of legal, judiciary and financiary privileges
which are denied to the replacees, the indigenes of Europe, they would not
come in the first place and they would not stay. Cutting the money supply
would be enough to start remigration.
When referring to the
'Great Replacement', would not we be talking about a demographic change?
/.../ Or should we fight this trend even if it could be unavoidable?
Of course there have been demographic changes throughout history.
But great civilisations have flourished when Man or a people have decided
to oppose and interrupt, at least for a time, the cycle of violence,
conquest, ethnic substitution, replacement. The population of France has
been remarkably stable between 600 A.D. and 1900, or even 1970. ...
How you differ from Marine Le Pen or more radical groups with
anti-immigration or even racist positions?
Marine Le Pen and
other right wing leaders or political parties say they are opposed to the
continuation of immigration, or that they want to control it better. That
does not make any sense at all. There is no point in saying that an
invasion must stop when it has already taken place. /.../ When Algeria
became independent from France in 1962, it immediately decided it would not
be real independence if ten per cent of the population was alien to its
culture, language, religion. The French colonisers had to leave, often
after five or six generations. I certainly do not advocate the horrible
brutality of the process (it was realised in a few weeks, not without never
mentioned massacres), but I agree with the necessity. We have to get out
once and for all of the colonialist period of the history of humanity.
SOCIAL COHESION NATIONAL IDENTITY
Identity is just as important as wealth. Why don't economists get that?
The Spectator, 5 January 2019
It has become commonplace for news reports to refer to almost
any civic unrest, or even unusual patterns of voting, as evidence of
'resurgent nationalism' implicitly suggesting a visceral hatred of
foreigners and a desire to set the clock back to the glory days of racial
homogeneity and casual homophobia. We should be wary of accepting this
media trope: for one thing it may arouse far more fear than is warranted.
But apart from the needless fear it generates, it is also slightly
dubious to suggest that it is the gilets jaunes or the Five Star
Movement or the supporters of Brexit or even Donald Trump who are acting
intemperately. It is perfectly possible to argue that these movements are a
sensible, overdue reaction against governments that have imposed economic
globalisation on the world at a pace that is entirely inconsistent with the
human lifespan and the speed at which we can adapt to change. The free
movement of people, the euro, large-scale immigration, the dissolution of
the nation state for that matter the admission of China to the
WTO... all were imposed on the world by ideologically motivated elites with
little public consultation. Regardless of whether you think they are good
or bad, there is a perfectly sensible secondary question to be asked about
whether they were too much too soon. Remember, such decisions are usually
made by economists, who do not really understand either time or scale.
Nor does conventional economics take into account the importance of
identity. Eighteen years ago, rather presciently, George Akerlof and Rachel
Kranton suggested that economics is far too individualistic in its
conception of human motivation. Identity Economics, as they call their
theory, holds that people's pride in their collective identity can be
considered as a parallel form of wealth, which people seek to grow and
protect every bit as much as the balance of their bank accounts. When you
strip people of their identity, the reaction is no different than if you
deprive people of their earnings.
Given the fact that we have
evolved as a social species, this theory should hardly surprise us. After
all, the one quality most likely to ensure survival over the past million
years was proudly to belong to one or more defined, excludable groups with
a shared allegiance born of common bonds and obligations. It would be odd
if this instinct were not every bit as powerful as the urge to acquire
wealth. And to disparage this fellow feeling as though it were necessarily
a malign force is nonsense: it is a large part of what makes society work.
Economics is obsessed with the gains arising from scale. But
identity does not scale neatly or quickly. ...
is one principled argument for a hard Brexit, even if at some economic
cost. It is to make the perfectly valid point that in a democracy the
government should do what people want, not what economic theory says is
good for them. Quite simply, economics is anthropologically tone-deaf: it
has far too narrow a conception of what people really care about to justify
the influence it carries.
POLITICS CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Andrew Green: The new Immigration White Paper. Not just damaging, but a disaster both for control and the Conservatives
ConservativeHome, 4 January 2019
As MPs gather next week to resume their debate on Brexit, they
will need to turn their attention to immigration a major issue in
the EU referendum.
Unfortunately, the Immigration White Paper,
slipped out just before Christmas, is not just a set-back for immigration
control, it is a disaster. Indeed it will, in future, be seen to have been
extremely damaging for public faith in the political system trust in
politicians and the Conservative Party especially.
despite all their promises over eight years not just promises but
manifesto commitments the Conservatives have given up any serious
attempt to reduce immigration. If the proposals in The White Paper are
implemented, immigration will be far more likely to increase still further
and could well spin out of control.
How could that be? Consider
this. Until now, highly skilled immigration (that is at degree level or
higher) has been open for EU citizens but capped at 20,700 for non-EU
entrants. According to the new policy, there will be no cap on either.
Furthermore, employers will no longer be obliged to advertise a job in
Britain before recruiting from overseas: how will British staff feel about
that? There is even talk of abolishing the system of sponsorship so that
anyone could bring in a worker, perhaps even a relative, as long as they
said that they would be paying a salary of £30,000 a year. Yet the
Government's own Advisory Committee, mainly pro-immigration economists, has
admitted that salary levels can be fiddled, for example by including other
elements such as accommodation.
For anyone who has followed
immigration matters for some years (in my case 18 years), this is sheer
foolishness, but that is not the half of it. There is also to be a new
route for those with much lower qualifications put simply, "A level"
or equivalent which will be open to the whole world and also
uncapped. Given that these routes will lead to settlement there could be
waves of applications, from all over the world, including from people
willing to take a pay cut to get on a track for permanent residence and
eventual British citizenship.
There is more. There is also to be a
route for unskilled workers from "low risk" countries. ...
Amazingly, this last route will also be uncapped and will be open
to visitors from these countries to find and take up a job while they are
here. The clear implication is that all EU countries will be included
amongst the "low risk" countries, so Romanians and Bulgarians, still
arriving in considerable numbers, will continue to flow in. ...
Even that is not the end of it. ...
It is beyond question
that immigration was a major issue at the referendum. Its salience has
declined somewhat since then, at least partly because people thought that
it was all in hand.
The White Paper contains a great deal of talk
about the "control" of immigration, but the reality is that new routes will
be opened, some temporary but the Government's record in removing
overstayers is lamentable. Meanwhile, the public are clear that they want
to see an actual reduction. They are aware, no doubt, that immigration has
been adding one million to our population every three years since 2001.
They may also know that, at current rates of immigration to England, we
shall have to build a new home for immigrants every six minutes, night and
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BORDER SECURITY
Migrant farce is making Britain look like a soft touch
Daily Mail, 2 January 2019
Home Secretary Sajid Javid is coming under increasing political
pressure to get a grip on the recent surge in migrant boats crossing the
English Channel. ...
Yet, as a former police officer who spent much
of my career in border enforcement, I have to say that I feel a large
degree of sympathy for the Home Secretary.
It would be profoundly
unfair to heap all the blame on him for the present mess. The reality is
that Sajid Javid inherited a toxic legacy when he took over the Home Office
last summer because the Border Force simply does not have the capacity to
do its job properly.
That is glaringly obvious when it comes to our
territorial waters, where the Force has a total of just five cutters to
cover 7,723 miles of coastline, whereas Italy has around 600 patrol boats
to combat migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean.
is even more stark in the English Channel, one of the world's busiest
shipping routes, where just one cutter has been operating recently
and even that has reportedly been in dock in Ramsgate since Saturday.
It is little wonder that people smugglers and organised crime
networks sense they have little to fear from the grossly overstretched
British agencies. Every new picture of a boatload of migrants being ushered
ashore in Kent reinforces the impression that Britain is a soft touch.
An immigration free-for-all cannot be allowed to develop further,
especially not in the Channel.
For a start, further impotence on
the part of the authorities would dramatically escalate the crisis, making
a humanitarian tragedy inevitable.
Indeed, without a crackdown, the
traffickers would spread their theatre of operations beyond the Kent coast,
using bigger vessels to reach Sussex, Hampshire, East Anglia and even
Lincolnshire. So, robust action is needed.
In practice, that means
beefing up the Border Force through more patrol boats, more staff and more
resources to tackle the organised gangs. ...
But any increase in
the Border Force's capability will achieve nothing without a radical change
At present, the enforcement patrols along with
Royal National Lifeboat Institution vessels which have also been deployed
tend to pick up the migrants from their boats, then bring them back
Far from acting as a kind of deterrent, this approach
is actually an incentive for more illegal migration because the British
appear to be acting as a 'taxi service'.
What needs to happen is
for the British Government to negotiate deals with our European partners
for the rescued migrants to be returned to the Continent instead of being
ferried to our shores. ...
It is too simplistic to argue that our
Navy should act unilaterally to take these migrants straight back to the
Continent. That would be wholly impractical and a major breach of
Britain would not tolerate French military ships
sailing into our southern ports to leave groups of illegal migrants on the
But with more imagination, flexibility, resources and
sheer willpower, along with an international accord, our Government can
overcome the current problem in the Channel before it spirals out of
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BORDER SECURITY
Theresa May should have solved this 'migrant crisis' back in 2016
Daily Mail, 1 January 2019
Not that there's anything minor about the current cross-Channel
traffic in illegal immigrants coming ashore on the Kent coast in increasing
numbers. Since the story exploded on a slow news day over Christmas, the
Government has gone into full headless chicken mode. ...
this would be necessary, of course, had the Government not ignored the
problem of illegals crossing the Channel when it first surfaced more than
two-and-a-half years ago.
It's not as if they didn't know it was
happening. Between March and May 2016, there were at least eight recorded
incidents of Border Force officials intercepting attempts to enter Britain
by boat, via beaches in Kent and Sussex. ...
... And still they
kept coming, unhindered, throughout the summer. In September 2016, the
Mail's Sue Reid hired a small inflatable boat in France and sailed across
the Channel to Dover. She passed a French coastguard vessel, a naval patrol
and landed safely without anyone challenging her or asking to see her
Six days earlier, a group of illegal immigrants had
jumped off a private boat near Felixstowe, in Suffolk, and simply vanished.
In November 2016, I returned to the subject, when a man who claimed
to be Iranian, but probably wasn't, was found rowing towards Britain in an
inflatable kayak. ...
... Part of Javid's new emergency plan to
halt the flow is to rely on increased co-operation from the French. Good
luck with that.
One thing we've learned over the years is that our
French 'partners' can't be trusted.
If they were serious about
stopping immigrants heading for Britain, they would turn them back at the
border when they attempted to enter France.
law, migrants allegedly fleeing oppression are supposed to seek asylum in
the first safe country in which they arrive. In this latest case, that
means Serbia. None of them should have any right to settle in Britain.
But the reason this country remains their No 1 destination is the
same as it ever was. We're not just perceived as a soft touch, we are a
In Calais last week, Sue Reid spoke to a 33-year-old
Iranian, who told her: 'My friend reached England from here in a boat and
is now in a three-bedroom flat in Birmingham. He likes it very much.'
I bet he does. What's not to like? There are plenty of people born
and bred in Birmingham who have been on the council waiting list for years
and would just love a three-bedroom flat. Yet an Iranian can jump out of
boat on a beach in Kent, make his way to Brum and move in straight away.
While we roll out the welcome mat, immigrants will continue to make
the dangerous Channel crossing, secure in the knowledge that, once they set
foot in Britain, the chances of them being deported are less than zero. ...
Sajid Javid may be taking the flak right now, but he wasn't Home
Secretary in March 2016, when this problem first came to light.
What he has inherited is merely the culmination of more than
two-and-a-half years of incompetence, indifference and inaction.
who was Home Secretary back then? Let me think . . .
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BORDER SECURITY
The crisis will grow if we assist the smugglers
Daily Telegraph, 1 January 2019
[David Wood is a former director general of immigration enforecement at the Home Office]
The rise in the number of migrants attempting to reach the UK
via the English Channel in small boats and dinghies is a worrying trend.
The French authorities have never effectively policed the
organised crime and illegal immigration issues surrounding the Channel
crossings. Migrants seeking access to the UK are inavariably also illegal
entrants to France but little or no action is taken. They do not
investigate the criminals involved, which leads to open advertising for
migrant customers by crime groups in the Calais area.
That is not
to say there haven't been failings on the UK side. ...
also used to have mobile border officers who visited small ports and
airports; austerity has seen these resources greatly reduced, too.
Once intercepted, the migrants are brought to the UK where
practically all will claim asylum. If the resources are available, a short
screening interview takes place and the migrants are asked to report to an
Immigration Centre. That interview will not necessarily be adequate to
detect the risks posed by the migrant and there is no certainty that the
details provided are correct.
While some migrants will follow the
asylum process through, others will just disappear. Moreover, whether
successful or not in their application, they are very unlikely to be
deported, and, if Iranian, will certainly not be as the Iranian government
refuses to document their nationals for returns. All will have destroyed
Furthermore, the majority of migrants
attempting to cross the Channel will not be fleeing persecution or war.
They will have paid substantial sums to make the crossing and are more
likely to be economic migrants seeking a better life for themselves and
their families. ...
Deploying more rescue ships may therefore be
counter-productive unless accompanied by an agreement with the French to
return the migrants to France.
IMMIGRATION ABROAD WORLD, PUBLIC OPINION
Anxiety About Immigration is a Global Issue
Quillette, 1 January 2019
[Remi Adekoya is a Ph.D. student researching group identity at Sheffield University]
What do Nigerians, Indians, Turks and Mexicans think about
migrants coming to their countries? This we don't hear much about.
Two recent surveys on the issue provide interesting results. Pew
Research queried respondents in 27 nations across six continents, asking
whether they felt their countries should let in more immigrants, fewer, or
about the same as they do at present. ...
The percentage of people
wanting fewer or no more immigrants coming to their country was higher in
South Africa (65 percent), Argentina (61 percent), Kenya (60 percent),
Nigeria (50 percent), India (45 percent), and Mexico (44 percent) than it
was in Australia (38 percent), the U.K. (37 percent) or the U.S. (29
percent). In all 27 countries surveyed, less than a third of
respondents said their country should let in more immigrants. A 2017
Ipsos MORI survey on global "nativist" trends painted a similar picture.
When asked if they thought their country would be "stronger" if it "stopped
immigration" altogether, more Turks (61 percent) and Indians (45 percent)
answered in the affirmative than Brits (31 percent), Australians (30
percent), Germans (37 percent) or South Africans (37 percent). On the
question of whether they felt like "strangers in their own country"
another indicator of hostility towards immigration more Turks (57
percent), South Africans (54 percent), Brazilians (46 percent) and Indians
(39 percent) answered yes than Germans (38 percent), Brits (36 percent) or
Australians (36 percent). Finally, when asked whether employers should
"prioritize" hiring locals over immigrants, 74 percent of Turks, 64 percent
of Peruvians, 62 percent of Indians and 60 percent of South Africans
agreed, compared to 58 percent of Americans, 48 percent of Brits and 17
percent of Swedes.
The idea that so-called "nativism" or hostility
towards immigration is confined to white Westerners is a fallacy; it is a
global phenomenon that is often stronger in non-Western countries. Of
course, I wouldn't hold my breath for a spate of articles in international
media on the worrying trend of "nativism" in India or condemnations of
Kenyans for wanting fewer immigrants in their country. The moral outrage of
many white progressives and most intellectuals of color in the West on this
subject is solely reserved for white societies; if black or brown people
share exactly the same sentiments that white people are being lambasted
for, it will either be greeted with silence or with all sorts of
justificatory rationalizations. ...
... In a 2017 survey of six
African nationsNigeria, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Senegal and
Tanzania4375 percent of the citizens said they would move
elsewhere given the opportunity. This translates to well over 200 million
people from these six countries alone who would emigrate if the opportunity
arose, presumably to one of the world's rich countries. This is the reality
that Western governments cannot afford to ignore. The fact that so many
Kenyans, Nigerians and South Africans would like to emigrate elsewhere but
don't want immigrants coming into their country is a testament to our
universal human capacity for expecting from others what we ourselves are
not ready to give.