Tuesday, 17 July 2007

Illegal Immigration and the IPPR Newspeak.

If you came home one day and found someone squatting in your back bedroom, you would be very upset. What if you went to the police to have them removed only for the authorities to say you were not allowed, but instead, from now on, you must share your home with them. You would be very upset, no? Who is that person? Are they a criminal? Do they have any dangerous diseases like HIV or TB? They might seem OK on the surface but, frankly, being British we get VERY UPSET if someone does not have the common decency to ask first! It is all about freedom and consent, don't you know.

We have now a report from the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) that demands an amnesty for illegal immigrants. The IPPR, being a Sociofascist/Statist throat, does not seem to care much for freedom and consent, but prefers to just take so it can feel good about giving to others.

Before we even begin, the IPPR are conducting an insidious tactic of trying to introduce a new term - "irregular migrant". No, IPPR, they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Irregular is not generally used to imply illegal activity, even if it can take that meaning, and migrant is a pointless fudge - we are talking about incoming migrants only, so they are immigrants from the context of the UK. However, the use of the term "migrant" makes one think that the authors are self-loathers who are not particularly fond of or loyal to the concept of the UK as a sovereign nation. I suspect they get into rapture about the EU, though.

"irregular migrant" is a synthetic term and should be rejected at every turn.

As to the substance of the report itself, the main focus seems to be on gaining more tax revenue and to hang with the consequences. We know Gordon Brown has been smashing piggy-banks and pawning necklaces left, right and centre, but for a so-called (as if) independent think tank to tempt a dribbling addict with more "gear" is a pretty low tactic even for their ilk.

The increase in tax revenues does not seem to factor in the increased medical, housing, educational and other costs, but of course, to Statists like the IPPR, these things are "free", are they not?

The entire concept of an amnesty in the UK is:

Unsustainable: The UK has a shortage of housing, healthcare, schools and, in the South where they will most likely settle, water even. Once the UK has one amnesty, the nagging for more will grow and grow, like a spoilt child. Illegal immigrants already view the UK as a soft touch. Giving such an amnesty will encourage desperate people from all over the world to make an attempt for the UK. Even compared to other safe, prosperous nations in the EU, the UK is singled because of our Government's flaccidity. The UK needs skilled migrants and also needs to cut down the cosy hammock that has been constructed out of the Welfare State's safety net. The IPPR have chosen to ignore the very rational maxim that mass immigration and a Welfare State are incompatible concepts.

Undermining the Rule of Law: Citizenship is a legal status. Passports are required by law. Visas are required by law from many places. Proof of identity of foreign nationals enables some control over who enters and when they leave. Foreign nationals are not permitted to settle and/or work by law. Granting an amnesty is an abdication of law, and so it undermines the Rule of Law. The people so granted are unknown, unchecked. I wish to point out that I would not blame the immigrants themselves for being willing to break the law to enter the UK, for who could say truthfully that they would not do so in similar circumstances? If I were living in Sub-Saharan Africa, I would chance my arm in coming to the UK, make no mistake about that. The blame for undermining the rule of law is not the migrants but the foolish ideas from the IPPR and the contradictory and treasonous directives and rulings in various human rights documents which successfully hamstring the Nation State in its role as protector for the people.

Destabilising: Vast numbers of unknown individuals, often with no concept of Britain or Britishness will cause conflict and resentment. The situation is on a knife-edge as it is and an amnesty will make matters worse. Giving legal status to illegal immigrants will tar the entire migrant population with the same brush, even though their migration occured generations ago. All will be suspected of being one of them. It causes doubt, then fear, then hate. Hate causes violence and discrimination. From fear onwards, business and trade are less efficient due to the higher perceived risk. Communities are built on sand. If migrants were skilled and professional people, the general perception of them would be higher. The Polish plumber is a welcome arrival, for example.

Irresponsible: Who ARE these 700,000 individuals? What skills do they have? What is their attitude to Rule of Law? You just don't know. You are rolling the dice 700,000 times. You WILL get murderers, rapists, forgers, thieves. It only takes one person in 10,000 to make the lives of all a misery. Sending a very strong signal - nay, I call it an invite - to desperate people all over the world is indeed highly irresponsible behaviour by a government, who are, lest they forget, OUR servants and are there to look after and care for citizens of this country, not anyone who happens to float in.

The IPPR is being utterly irresponsible. If we want to give opportunity to people all over the world, instead of IMPORTING bodies into this crowded place, we should be EXPORTING the English Common Law, Rule of Law and an efficient economic system along the lines I have posted before - fix the problem, not the symptom. Migration is the symptom. Dysfunctional States are the problem.

I suggest those in the IPPR show the strength of their convictions and just be allotted any number of unknown, unverified or vetted illegal immigrants without a medical to stay in their home. Actually we should not even bother to ask them, but just do it. That is what they are suggesting for us. See how they like it.

1 comment:

Mark Wadsworth said...

Completely and utterly agreed, as per usual.