Tuesday, May 05, 2009

"Criminals Into Freeloaders"

Dogwash gives his considered view on the campaign to legalise illegal immigration.

The "amnesty" will simply send out a signal to the waiting millions, nay, tens, hundreds of millions, that if you blag your way into the UK, you need only keep your head down for as long as it takes for your sheer numbers to become a political and logistical embarrassment, whereupon the next one-off and absolutely, irrevocably final amnesty will take place.

Just consider the thousands who camp out at what is effectively Nouvelle Sangatte. Listen to the interviews. They have paid serious money to work their way across Europe in the hope of reaching what, despite all attempts at dissuasion, they genuinely believe to be some kind of El Dorado.

Worse, they also feel a sense of entitlement to be here, usually based on some woolly but unshakable notion of reparation for what the British have historically "done to their people". These guys are not simply attempting to break into the country for their economic improvement, they are exercising their perceived birthright. They are entitled, they believe, to the house and the benefits payments they expect to receive in the UK. The feeble attempts of the British authorities to exclude them are no more than an incomprehensible and unwarranted annoyance.

It is an attitude which finds echoes across the world.

You do not stem that determined flow by saying, "Look chaps, we're full now. Yes, we know we managed to find room for the last lot, but no more. Be good fellows and just bugger orf, will you. What! Wait a minute! No! Stop that man! — Oh dear. — Perkins, just, er, quietly increment that Absolutely Non-negotiable Limit again, there's a good chap."

An amnesty will not stem the demand; it will exacerbate it. I see nothing in the actions or intentions of our government to address that consequence.
Not much to disagree with there. Spain's had, what - five amnesties ? Strangely, they get bigger and bigger.

He then strolls down to the Square to take a look :

People were handing out Union flags along with the leaflets, which struck me as a bit impertinent, to be honest. And there was even, Gordelpus, a feeble rendering of "God Save the Queen". Sorry, guys, I'm not convinced.

Obviously somebody's idea is to paint these "undocumented workers" as patriotic types simply dying to wrap themselves in the flag of the Mother Country. The various lefties blogging the rally aren't convinced either :

My bit of the demo had huge numbers of people waving Union Jacks, which was slightly disconcerting. I saw one banner for Algerian Refugees that was one huge Union Flag and frankly I'm not going to be the one to say that's wrong. Context is everything and if people want to use national symbols to help them press for being treated as equal citizens, well that makes sense to me even if I'm not used to it.

Although when a rousing chorus of God Save the Queen went up I did find myself rocking back and forth muttering to myself "It's alright, it's alright, they don't really mean it" although probably quite a few did.

I think the translation is : 'this patriotic display's a bit creepy, even though I know it's just a show'.

Lots and lots of the marchers were carrying small and large butchers’ aprons to affirm that they have as much right to be treated with dignity as anyone else. You’d need to be a seriously ultra-left idiot to tell them that they were wrong to do so.

Translation : 'if it fools a few useful idiots, then it's acceptable as a (transitional) tactic'.

Slightly tangential, but an interesting-if-true comment on the current Labour troubles at Socialist Unity :

A little birdy told me that some BIG things are happening within the Compass circle right now. A number of MPs within the circle of Compass are preparing to make moves after the Euro Elections, but only if the BNP make a significant breakthrough, they believe this would be enough for them to put forward their centre-left manifesto, and believe it would be enough to inspire the Labour grassroots to get fully behind a Compass candidate in the event of the Blairites looking to oust Brown.

The source suggests that the Compass MPs don’t have the bottle to publically make moves against Brown, however they do have a contingency plan in the result of a Labour leadership contest, followed by a General Election. My source also affirms that Compass would have a swift General Election in the event of their candidate winning.

They believed personally that the Compass candidate would come to an agreement with Cabinet Brownites to prevent the move of a Blairite candidate such as James Purnell from putting forward a reactionary, anti-welfare policy agenda which would be little different from BNP populism, and we can see evidence of Blairite figures moving in this direction already. However they could (or would?) not confirm who the Compass candidate might well be.

It's true that on economics the BNP are probably to the left of Labour. I don't know if the BNP are still campaigning as 'the Labour Party your grandparents voted for', but you could mount an argument that major BNP gains might force NuLab into adopting more radical, worker-friendly policies - if only to provide an alternative opposition to the current political consensus that globalised capitalism is the only game in town.

Trouble is, I can't see that the Labour left as currently constituted is capable of any radicalism which can actually attract votes. On lefty blogs lately the most reviled figure in the Labour Party has been James Purnell - because he suggested that those receiving disability benefits because of their alcoholism could have them cut unless they tried to clean up.

Now to most working people that's a no-brainer. Why should an alkie or smackhead actually get greater benefits than someone who's unemployed and trying to find work ? But to what passes for the left these days, it's an outrage, attacking the most vulnerable in society etc. The party of the working class is now the party of the non-working class. I just can't see that playing well on the doorstep. Any more than I can see this lot of same-olds inspiring the voters.

No, Labour are knacked no matter what. The Tories will win the big prize and form the next government. The fight will be over the smaller prizes.

And while I'd love to be proved wrong, I reckon about two years before the Tories are also in the electorate's bad books. After all, they won't have the head-start of goodwill that Blair had in 97.

Interesting times.


Anonymous said...

I like the idea that we wronged their people (whomever that may be) in the past.

Is this an admission that their presence here is in some sense revenge on us? Where does that leave the idea that their being here is a benefit to us?

Anonymous said...

Yes, the 'colonial karma' theory is the alchemy that turns the argument into political gold... it also plays in Spain, the US and to a lesser extent, in France.

What surprises me is that the UK has colonial karma is applied regardless of historical accuracy. For example, I've heard it from Turks and Spanish-derived Chileans as well as those for whom it could conceivably have some traction; eg Bangladeshis or Jamaicans.

This knavish argument needs to be exposed. One way is to use the Howard Stern device, which is to read out the (draconian) immigration requirements of Mexico - without mentioning Mexico of course - then ask which country they apply to.

Hugh Oxford said...

If somebody walks down the road with a sign strapped to their forehead saying "I'm an illegal immigrant" why in the name of God are they not incarcerated and deported?

This country urgently, urgently needs a new government that will deal with these issues.

Stan said...

"I reckon about two years before the Tories are also in the electorate's bad books."

I'm with you on this one. We know that there is little difference between the Labour and Tory party policies today - just minor quibbles about how to implement them.

dearieme said...

"We know that", Stan? I don't drop by here to read that sort of Leftist piffle.

Adrian Reynolds said...

I'm glad another commentator mentioned Mexico - where politicians of any stripe or level must be natural-born citizens (no room for naturalized folk like Manzila Uddin there), is this not as it should be?

Mexico also militarises its southern borders to try and stem the flow of Central Americans attempting to make their way north to the El Dorado they see 'el norte' (the USA) as being.

And yet, the flow of Mexican labour north is used as a safety valve to prevent the fomentation of domestic discontent amongst the darker skinned 'lower orders'. The border towns of Reynosa and Nuevo Laredo, in Tamaulipas, contain huge, shantyish sections - Sangatte writ large - that act as transit camps for those hoping to cross in to the promised land.

But, once there, and as the Secretariat de Relaciones Exterior (the Mexican Foreign Office) advises its citizens, if you keep your head down, work hard for cash and live quietly and unobtrusively, it's unlikely you'll ever be caught and you can wait for the next amnesty.

But, the illegal to the USA cannot claim any kind of social welfare (other than emergency medical attention and schooling for his kids who, if they were born in the USA, are automatically US citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment). Hence, the attraction to the USA is for work opportunities that can be used to support those left behind - not for welfare opportunities.

But where the USA can absorb a large number of such illegals, the UK can only struggle and reduce the level of wealth for all.

Mark said...

The link to the 'green party socialist' Daily Maybe is priceless-
'if people want to use national symbols to help them press for being treated as equal citizens, well that makes sense to me'.

How in the mush that passes for a brain does Daily Maybe deduce that foreigners in the UK illegally are entitled to identical rights as a natural born citizens ?
Such delusions are simply Kumbaya on steroids, with added dashes of cringing post colonial guilt.

Anonymous said...

I commented on Dogwash how I didn't see any coverage on television of this demonstration. I was thinking that the tide was changing ... but thinking again I reckon the BBC and the rest probably thought that coverage would fuel more support for the BNP.

Labour are going to implode post the June elections. Can't see any scope for the proposed Compass reinvention, simply because there is no talent anywhere in the parliamentary party (or outside judging from the left wing blogs).

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure it matters much what the public think of the Tories. Firstly I'm not that convinced that anyone will actually bother themselves to vote Labour at all. If they do it will probably be in those handful of seats with a high degree of welfare dependency in social housing. After the election there will be one hell of a catfight between the Blairites, Brownies and radical left with the Unions acting as referee. I think Labour are finished as an electoral force. It remains to be seen who will fill the vacuum.

Borealis said...

Adrian Reynolds: "But where the USA can absorb a large number of such illegals..."

No, it can't. As in the UK, there are too many, in too short a period of time, and the influx has devastated the livelihoods and communities of people not wealthy enough to shield themselves from the resulting Babel, making them strangers in their own lands. (Sound familiar?)

Don't let anyone tell you that "they handle these things better in the U.S.". Not even a country as big and fat as the U.S. can handle a flood of, literally, tens of millions of people at least indifferent, and often downright hostile to, the native anglophone culture, and a government hell-bent on importing millions more. It is true that we're big enough, and *were* rich enough to absorb a lot more damage than other countries might, but the same balkaninzing, immiserating forces are grinding away here as over there. (That said, the forces behind the migrations are distinct. The governments of the U.S. and Mexico work very hard together to craft trade policies that maximize the unemployment of Americans and Mexicans in their respective homelands.)

Anonymous said...

Don't let anyone tell you that "they handle these things better in the U.S.".

I suspect the reality is that everyone handles these things badly one way or another. The only way to sure is not to allow the immigration in the first place.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to return to that idea about colonial revenge, lets use India as an example...

We controlled India therefore its only right we should allow Indian immigration into the UK.

(Lets overlook the fact that there is no obvious connection between these two things and furthermore overlook the fact that British control of India was at the political level, we never settled there or displaced the local population).

The unspoken assumption is that British India was a BAD THING. Therefore Indian immigration into the UK is revenge for that. Thats a common meme. This implies that Indian immigration is therefore a BAD THING for us. Problem is, as we are all supposed to believe, Indian immigration into the UK is a GOOD THING for us. So why would these people whose ancestors we so heinously wronged want to come here just to help us out.

Something just does not add up.

Anonymous said...

For me, the colonial revenge trope is a piece of cod psychology on the level of the common anti-Israeli whine: "The abused turns into the abuser." It has no meaningful or practical clout, bar being another way to relativise the impact of immigration - and to therefore, as ever, avoid talking about its impact. One could always retort: "Then why didn't the Spanish move to Morocco after the reconquista?" Obviously, the whole idea is a piece of worthless student rhetoric.

I think the pull-factor of welfare is something that I haven't seen discussed in mainstream fora... unless I'm missing something. But it's interesting how many sacred cows HAVE rolled over without much notice. Why, it was only a few years ago that Ann Widdicombe was lambasted for even suggesting that asylum seekers might be 'economic migrants' rather than fleeing oppression (that was always caused by the UK in some form, however inadvertant). Now it's a commonplace. The left are slow learners, as P. Hitchens says...

Edwin Greenwood said...

"Colonial revenge" reasoning is not in itself a primary motivation for "irregular migration". I would be very surprised if anyone, except perhaps the occasional complete nutter, sets off from rural Anatolia saying to himself, "I'm going to impose myself on the British welfare state just to get back at them for their role in the fall of the Ottoman empire."

It is however a powerful tool for self-justification. The primary motivation, acknowledged or not, will usually be economic, but if the illegal migrant is tempted to feel the slightest qualm about, or is firmly challenged on, the legitimacy of breaking uninvited into someone else's country for his own personal gain, then being able to say, with complete sincerity, that the bastards deserve it in reparation for some perceived historical wrong, is jolly powerful ju-ju which will carry you through all manner of setbacks, adversities, rebuffs, challenges and self-doubts.

Add that factor to the more obvious selling points of the English language, the existence in the UK of established "communities" representing pretty well every damned tribe under the sun and a laxly managed welfare system, then it is little wonder that these folk will keep on banging their heads against our doors until they get in.

Anonymous said...

'"Colonial revenge" reasoning is not in itself a primary motivation for "irregular migration"'

Yeah, I agree it's not so much a motivation for why people come here,
but the 'colonial revenge' reasoning is part and parcel of the white liberal support for mass immigration. Hence the many of these types involved in the 'Strangers into Citizens' campaign.

moomintroll said...

For heaven's sake, the reason they come here is nothing to do with post colonial revenge etc., it is simply because it is well known worldwide that Britain is far more generous with its benefits than anyone else. If we were to fall into line with Europe and say that immigrants, legel and illegal would have no enntitlement to council houses, social security payments, medical treatment other than emergency, this might not stop the flow but it would hopefully slow it.

Dammitall! said...

Slogan: put it about, especially as 'toxic' is a newish buzz-word:


Anonymous said...

For heaven's sake, the reason they come here is nothing to do with post colonial revenge etc.

No, but once here an army of Guardianistas are on hand with a whole array of self-serving justifications ready for any immigrant who cares to use them.

Thus their presence here becomes a natural right, any problem they encounter becomes a negation of that right and proof of evil white racism.

Dammitall! said...

Yes, Anonymous: it useed to be called "packing the jury". But soon the juries will all comprise so many ethnics, that to remember the late, great Heinz Kiosk "We will all be guilty!"

Anatolie said...

I think that Australia have the wright imigrasion polisies. Peoples that wants to imigrate to Australia has to proove that they can support themselves and that they will fit into the Australian sosiety.

Even tough they have relacsed some of the imigration polisies latly with Kevin Rudd.

Brittain has got it totaly wrong with the imigrasion polisies that they have in the countrie. Everyone can come to Brittain if they wont to

Anonymous said...

Anatolie - no disrespect mate, but I get the impression that somehow you are deliberately misspelling, Molesworth style. Are you for real?