IMMIGRATION CONCERN

SELECTED NEWS AND VIEWS from 1 January 2019 (except most recent), by date

Quotations of the more notable items of news and views in date order - latest first


Extracts can, if preferred, be read in chronological order by using the "Up" link to go to the start of the item next above the one just read.

Authors expressing their own views are indicated in bold. The names of reporters are in normal type.


2019

POPULATION – DEMOGRAPHY, ETHNICITY
Demography has become the biggest story on the planet
Lionel Shriver
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'. ...

... According 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.
[Site link]

 

CRIME – YOUTHS, JAILS
More than half of young people in jail are of BME background
Jamie Grierson
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.

The proportion 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.

David 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%. ...

Lammy's review 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.
[Site link]

Up

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – BORDER SECURITY
Drug barons make a mockery of courts by IGNORING orders to return to ALBANIA
Jon Austin
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 the country.

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.
[Site link]

Up

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – BORDER SECURITY
Drug barons make a mockery of courts by IGNORING orders to return to ALBANIA: Comment
Alp Mehmet
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.

Seventy 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.
[Site link]

Up

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.

Muhammad 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.
[Site link]

Up

BORDER CONTROLS – WALLS
In defence of walls
Patrick West
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 are good.

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 marauders.

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.
[Site link]

Up

POLITICS – POPULATION
Wishful thinking over immigration
Alp Mehmet
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. ...

The 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 reduced.

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. ...

The 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. ...

Meanwhile, the 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.
[Site link]

Up

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – ENGLISH CHANNEL
3,000 migrants desperate to cross Channel will not be deterred by Border Force patrols, say charities
Charles Hymas
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.

Clare 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 hasn't."

Maddy Allen, field manager of Help Refugees, said the Border Force patrols and deployment of HMS Mersey were "not acting as a deterrent".
[Site link]

Up

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – POLITICS
Dinghies of migrants are small part of 'significant wedge' of illegal migration, says Director of Migration Watch UK
Holly Pyne
talkRadio, 22 January 2019


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".

A further 23 migrants were intercepted by the Border Force in the English Channel on Sunday, bringing the weekend total for arrivals to almost 40.

Mr 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.

"One 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."
[Site link]

Up

POPULATION – EMPLOYMENT
A declining population may not always be bad for the economy
Matthew Lynn
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 Challenges. ...

... 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 productivity. ...

... 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.
[Site link]

Up

MULTICULTURALISM – AUSTRALIA, WESTERN CIVILISATION
Western Civ: it's not just for white people anymore
Salvatore Babones
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 – it's patronising.

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.
[Site link]

Up

BORDER CONTROLS – WALLS
Donald Trump claims 77 major border walls have been built around the world with 800 miles of barriers across Europe
Charlie Parker
The Sun, 18 January 2019


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".
[Site link]

Up

IMMIGRATION ABROAD – CANADA
Don't ever question mass immigration or you'll be instantly racist
Barbara Kay
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 fact." ...

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 conclusion. ...

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. ...

But 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.

I recognize 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 them.

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.
[Site link]

Up

IMMIGRATION ABROAD – DENMARK
Denmark: "In One Generation, Our Country Has Changed"
Judith Bergman
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.
[Site link]

Up

MULTICULTURALISM – ISLAM, USA, EUROPE
Rep André Carson Predicts Sizable 'Muslim Caucus' By 2030. Is He Correct, And Will It Matter?
Scott Morefield
Townhall, 14 January 2019


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.

What 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.

For now.

Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, on the other hand, may not be so fortunate.
[Site link]

Up

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 Allen
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 three.

And even those refused asylum in Britain are highly unlikely to be kicked out, analysis of official data shows. ...

Lord Green 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 France.'

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 total.

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 process.

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.

A 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.
[Site link]

Up

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 2019


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 migrants.

The UK spends about £4 billion a year providing housing and other social benefits to EU migrants.

Economists for 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 communities.

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 population.

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 working week.

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.

Similar effects are found on the earnings of UK lower-skilled workers.

A 1 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. ...

The UK has the highest percentage of foreign-trained doctors of any European country – about three-times that of France, Germany, or Spain.
[Site link]

Up

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
Ian Drury
Daily 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.

'This means that these numbers add to an ever-growing number of migrants in the country who have no lawful entitlement to be here.

'Furthermore, 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.'
[Site link]

Up

POLITICS – PARLIAMENT, UN GLOBAL COMPACT ON MIGRATION
Parliament REFUSES Petition to Reject UN Migrant Pact: 'Already Been Agreed'
Victoria Friedman
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 Government."

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.

"The Committee 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 response.

"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.
[Site link]

Up

POLITICS – PUBLIC OPINION, SCOTLAND
Scots reject SNP call for immigration powers
Hamish Macdonell
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.
[Site link]

Up

EMPLOYMENT – INEQUALITY
Mass Immigration And The Growth Of Inequality
James Wickham
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 inequality.

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 additional labour.

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. ...

Until 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.
[Site link]

Up

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – POLITICS, ANTI-RACISM
How immigration makes us all irrational
Dan Hannan
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." ...

Immigration makes 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 people-smugglers?

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.
[Site link]

Up

TERRORISM – EUROPE, FRANCE
Report: Nearly all terror attacks in France carried out by radicals already known to police
Ken Dilanian
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.

The 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.

The statistics 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 said.
[Site link]

Up

IMMIGRATION – MULTICULTURALISM
"What we are experiencing in Europe is very much colonisation" [part 1]
Juan España
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 phenomenon.

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?

The 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.
[Site link]

Up

IMMIGRATION – MULTICULTURALISM
"What we are experiencing in Europe is very much colonisation" [part 2]
Juan España
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.
[Site link]

Up

SOCIAL COHESION – NATIONAL IDENTITY
Identity is just as important as wealth. Why don't economists get that?
Rory Sutherland
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. ...

This, incidentally, 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.
[Site link]

Up

POLITICS – CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Andrew Green: The new Immigration White Paper. Not just damaging, but a disaster – both for control and the Conservatives
Lord Green
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.

Why? Because, 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 day.
[Site link]

Up

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – BORDER SECURITY
Migrant farce is making Britain look like a soft touch
Chris Hobbs
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.

The situation 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 in strategy.

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 to England.

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 international law.

Britain would not tolerate French military ships sailing into our southern ports to leave groups of illegal migrants on the quayside.

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 control.
[Site link]

Up

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – BORDER SECURITY
Theresa May should have solved this 'migrant crisis' back in 2016
Richard Littlejohn
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. ...

None of 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 passport.

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.

Under international 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 soft touch.

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.

So who was Home Secretary back then? Let me think . . .
[Site link]

Up

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – BORDER SECURITY
The crisis will grow if we assist the smugglers
David Wood
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. ...

Border Force 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 their documentation.

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.

Up

IMMIGRATION ABROAD – WORLD, PUBLIC OPINION
Anxiety About Immigration is a Global Issue
Remi Adekoya
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 nations–Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Senegal and Tanzania–43–75 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.
[Site link]

Up

Number of items on this page: 31

This page was updated on 4th February 2019



Home page

Site address of home page: http://immigration-concern.info