Going on holiday tomorow, and the first thing I'll have to do is phone the water company and beg them not to send the bailiffs round. Undelivered bills and cheques which are in credit, but from an expired book, mean that Wednesday is the deadline for final payment, and as yet they've received nowt from me. Paid by giro slip at the Post Office on Saturday, but don't know if that will process before Wednesday, what with the Bank Holiday etc. Only hope they believe me when I tell them that- I'd even fax them the giro stub if needs be. I really hate this kind of shit.
It's really unfortunate that the whole Polish issue has co-incided with the subject of relations with the British "Muslim Community" (whatever that means). The two are different in several major respects, but have inevitably been conflated by the rightwing press, and a few narcissists on the left who enjoy the frisson of pissing off their readers. Usually along the lines of "No more !/I've changed my stance !/Time for a rethink !" The causes of such about-faces are usually such dire events as-
1) My flight was delayed.
2) There was no drinks trolley.
3) Those scowling chaps with the beards are nowhere near as servile as the ones who used to clean Daddy's pool when he was Ambassador to Mumbai.
Sorry, but if you want to do an Enoch, then there was an event thirteen months ago which maybe deserved a little more ire.
And if you've already passed verdict on the men who were arrested the other week, who haven't even been tried yet, might i remind you of the Sun headline the morning after Jean Charles de Menezes was shot, when no-one even knew who he was, let alone if he was a terrorist-
1 down, 3 to go.
Makes you proud to be British. Even prouder when the image of thousands dying in the Twin Towers is further debased by being printed alongside stories regarding said men, and COMIC STRIP (literally) versions of "what might have happened". No-one ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty" ?
17 comments:
"in this new world of more rapid and more diverse immigration, coupled with an unprecedented threat to global security, we cannot continue to pretend that there are no costs faced by our changing communities."
Which member of the rightwing press or "narcissist on the left" said that today?
It was Trevor Phillips, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality.
When someone like that can see that the present open door policy is "changing the composition of the nation" and questions whether or not it should be happening, surely it is time to start asking questions.
People aren't against uncontrolled immigration because of delayed flights or the lack of a drinks trolley, they are against it because we have huge downward pressure on wages, huge pressure on services, significant minorities of people who wish to blow themselves up on our trains and airplanes, and a change in the very composition of this country.
And it was all done without the british people being consulted. And the next wave of uncontrolled immigration, from Bulgaria and Romania, will also go ahead without the present occupants of this country being asked their opinion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=20BSJ54UEUCDVQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/30/nphillips30.xml
Yes, and according to Peter Clarke, Scotland Yard's head of counter-terrorism, police in the UK are keeping watch on "thousands" of people who may be involved in terrorism.
Mind you, Tom is right. The issues of immigration and terrorism are mostly separate and should be kept so. After all, it is only one small section of only one immigrant community in this country that supports terrorism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5306580.stm
Just back from holiday- my, you have been busy. My original point was that Eastern European immigration IS being discussed in the same newspaper articles as Islamist terrorism all the time. Bizarrely enough, I saw an article from the director of Migrationwatch (a highly dubious bunch, in my opinion) recently in the Telegraph which broadly agreed with Home Office figures on immigration from Poland, Romania et al. Most of those coming to the UK are young, active and will probably return home to their relatively stable, relatively cohesive nation states eventually (he claims).
That can't be predicted for sure, but I can't see how they represent any terrorist threat at all. They share a basic European cultural background, don't have any form of religious extremism (unless you consider Catholicism/Orthodoxy to be basically extremist in nature), and we haven't bombed them recently. It may be the biggest ever migration recorded, but haven't we heard constantly about the "greying population/skills shortage/pensions timebomb" for a decade now ?
His main assertion was that the real danger lies within alienated second and third generation descendants within Muslim communities. I don't think anyone would dispute that, given the profiles of the 7/7 bombers. But putting limits on immigration won't stop that. Monitoring extremist immams and the like will.
more or less i aggree with you tom.
the funny thing is, while you people in england are having a debate about whether or not to halt/slow the immigration of east european immigrants to the uk, people here in russia are having the EXACT same debate about "easterner". moscow, so say some, is filled with gastarbieters who, according to general knowledge, are dirty, lazy, dishonest, and smelly. they work on every construction site in this city as well as in all the kiosks. they are routinely beaten by the police. and yet they come, from the whole former soviet union and even china.
given that russia is in demographic crisis, i dont see why this is a problem, but my collegues are convinced they are about to be overrun by the eastern hords.
i wonder who they fear in china?
Well sure. It's one of the most ubiquitous human characteristics.
They don't have any immigrants in China.
I challenge you to find a single case of a non-ethnically Chinese person that holds a Chinese passport.
The same goes for Japan and Korea. And, whilst in those countries there are a tiny tiny miniscule number of non-ethnically Japanese and non-ethnically Korean passport holders, the general rule is that they allow no immigration.
Nor do they accept any assylum seekers. S.Korea accept some from N.Korea but regularly and routinely turn away any others.
Tom. Question for you. Is this racist? Is it racist of China, Korea and Japan to have a no-immigration policy?
personally I don't think it's racist at all. I think countries are perfectly permitted to decide their own immigration policy. And I think that this country has a lot to learn from the far east in that respect.
When did I suggest that countries should not be allowed to decide their own immigration policy ? Britain may have to abide by EU regulations on that, but it was a decision made by our democratically elected government.
A no-immigration policy strikes me as not so much racist as pointless, not to mention contrary to human nature. You and I are both examples of people leaving their country, at least for a while, in search of a life which is, if not materially better, then at least different. It would be racist in terms of being hypocritical, if there were no immigration, but no limits on emigration (and if what you say is true, then that seems to be the case). And asylum is a different topic.
Polish plumbers come to Britain to make more money than they could at home, given the disparities between costs of living in Poland and Britain. How does that differ from an EFL teacher teaching on a Saudi oil compound for a few years, and making enough to buy a house in the UK (as I have known to happen) ? In doing so, both fill a gap in that country.
You say that "most" immigrants are "nice people" in that they "work hard". Isn't that the same hard work that's driving down wages, from your angle ?
Yes, of course most of the new immigrants are nice people, but at the same time the sheer number of them is having a detrimental effect on the working poor of this country and that's why I think the government should restrict the number of new immigrants.
As for saying they are the same as an EFL teacher in Saudi. Nope, not a chance. EFL teachers (and other foreign workers) in Saudi, Kuwait, etc are there to work in a very small number of jobs indeed and not a single one of them will get more than a working visa.
Eastern European Immigrants to this country, in contrast, have no restrictions placed on their employment, qualify for government benefits (which European workers in arab states do not) and after a certain residency period can apply for citizenship. An impossibility in the gulf states!
It's merely one example of what motivates 100s of 1000s of British people to work abroad, the same as people of any nationality, and if it's in the EU, then they qualify for benefits. I was entitled to sign on for Greek dole, though I never did. If that's possible in a country with as shambolic a civil service as Greece, I don't see why it shouldn't in the other EU states.
So just what could Britain learn from Far Eastern immigration policy ? And how many elements of your (or my) life would either vaporise or never have happened if they were applied here ?
Do you really wish for me to respond to those questions?
This is already a long debate in terms of the comments page of a personal blog, but if you'd like to continue then I'm more than happy to carry on.
Don't get me wrong; I've very much enjoyed our discussion - but before I add more I'd like to check if you really do want to develop the debate or if your questions are only rhetorical.
I have no wish to overstay my welcome on your page!
Feel free. I'm all ears/eyes/whatever.
Tom, you asked:
"So just what could Britain learn from Far Eastern immigration policy ? And how many elements of your (or my) life would either vaporise or never have happened if they were applied here ?"
So, first things first, immigration policy in other countries.
I can only talk about the countries I know best (outside of the UK) and I'll start with Korea.
It would be pretty much impossible for me, as non-ethnically Korean, to get a Korean passport. I know a good number of people who have been married to Koreans, in Korea, and who speak the language fluently but will simply never get a passport. It is Korean policy to restrict immigration no matter from where, although spouses and family memebers do obtain residency. I'm not saying that this is ideal; it's just an example of how tight Korea's immigration policy is. Put simply, there is no way Korea (for example) would have the situation that Britain now has, of unrestricted open access to millions of foriegn nationals.
For all those that claim immigration is necessary for the economy, I'd suggest that the experience of Korea and Japan provides a solid counter-argument. It is possible to have good economic growth without immigration.
Because of this policy Koreans have a very solid sense of national identity. In my experience this identity is a source of real pride for the Koreans and leads to a certain sense of solidarity among the population. Crime in South Korea is a tiny fraction of what it is in the UK and not once in my two years there did I encounter any crime or threatening situations at all.
As for your second question, about what I would have to give up if Britain had such a policy, the best answer would be to look at the Koreans again. Young Koreans, as you know, are becoming increasingly well-travelled and successful abroad. Many go away for many years to work or to study, just as we have done in our time, and to be honest I can't see how their nation's immigration policy has in any way effected the freedoms and opportunities of young Korean people.
I hope that does answer your questions. In a nutshell:
1) I believe that Britain ought to restrict future numbers of new immigrants. Personally I'd restrict future immigration to only natural growth (spouses and family members etc) but, hey, I'm not the PM.
2) I don't see how such a policy if adopted would have effected my life at all. (It would certainly have made it possible to find well-paid work and an affordable place to live - but I don't wish to broaden this out beyond your initial questions.)
By the way, and this is just an aside, did you read the Cambridge Evening News today? Did you see the headline on page 14? "Anglers hit out as Eastern Europeans move in with their nets to steal huge stocks of fish"
Apparently the problem is so bad that the police have had to set up a special team to combat the gangs of Eastern European river poachers.
If, as this government originaly said, only 6,000 Eastern Europeans had entered the UK after enlargement, these kinds of conflicts simply would not be happening. By allowing millions (600,000 registered - countless unregistered) of new immigrants into Britain in the last few years, these kinds of problems were inevitable.
Again, I have nothing against any Eastern European who comes here to work. I can even understand why some might go fishing with his mates without permits. It's the scale of the thing that is the problem.
And, yes, of course, river poaching here is a flippant example. It's actually quite funny. But it is an example of the strains this amount of immigration - totally unrestricted by the government - creates.
Phew, so....let me ask you two questions:
1) Do you think we should allow unrestricted immigration into Britain by Bulgarian and Rumanian immigrants when those countries join the EU - just as we allowed free access from the other Eastern European countries?
2) It is possible that one day Turkey will also join the EU. Having allowed unrestricted immigration from other new EU states, do you think our government should also allow unrestricted immigration from Turkey too?
Phew!
I look forward to your response. But also bow out and give you, quite rightly, the final word.
All the very best to you mate.
It seems to me that, since you live in the south of England, you have a skewed perception of the impact recent immigration has had. The numbers may sound big, and bigger than expected, and you can't deny the numbers evident as you walk around this area (NOT that I'm saying that is a bad thing, by any means whatsoever). But take a bus ride around Edinburgh and you'll hear a fraction of the number of Slavic-speaking people you hear here. And you'll see countless jobs advertised that will otherwise go unfilled. I know that immigration has been handled sloppily at point of entry, but the question of our relationship with other countries is a different matter.
For a country to allow emigration but not immigration, to me, is racist in terms of inconsistency. If citizens of one country can enjoy the benefits of life in others while denying the same to foreigners in their own is just hypocritical. For that reason, Britain cannot enter into union with other European countries without being on completely reciprocal terms.
Yes, I know there will not be hordes of Brits charging off to Romania in the near future, but it won't take long for British business to exploit the benefits of them joining the EU.
To proceed in the same breath from the question of immigration to crime levels suggests some dubious underlying assumptions. Of course Britain has experienced fragmentation. But there is no way we could have denied citizenship to people over whom we have a history of imperialism. And the failure of some to integrate is wholly down to shortcomings of social policy since, and the collision of recent world history with some vile ideologies within a miniscule minority.
As for our new European neighbours, I have seen no serious evidence from any source that union with them will create economic problems in Britain (even in what are the "enemy" papers to me). Even "Migrationwatch" can't decide whether they'll all go home eventually, or whether to stipulate that they be able to earn at least £27,000 (?!). Wages at the bottom end have remained unchanged in ten years, as I said before, and the housing shortage can be blamed on someone whose name rhymes with "Blatcher" . If you really have a grievance on these issues, I suggest you blame the governments and employers that really exert influence on these matters. It all just sounds to me like a contemporary variation on "They'll open a shop on every corner".
Whatever, your take will probably prevail, as New Labour dances to the tabloid tune. And at least discussing it here engenders a little more opportunity for reasoned debate than the sweaty confines of the New School staffroom.
Oh, yes! We can certainly agree on that!
Post a Comment