It depends on which immigrants, really.
Tuesday, July 09, 2024
Politics latest news: People want immigration controls, Tony Blair warns Keir Starmer.
One of the joys of growing up working class (middle class in the American sense) and becoming middle class (in the British sense) is that – from your weird bubble where neither the people you grew up with, nor the people you now live with, quite accept you as fully belonging – you get to see just how little our people know of each other's lives.
Take the example of immigration. In the linked article, Tony Blair (who seems somehow to have been re-elected last week, though he appeared on no ballot papers) says immigration is a good thing with the following example;
I think there is a centre ground that can hold which is where people understand there are enormous benefits to immigration, and by the way a lot of what we are talking about, these great AI innovations, look at the people leading them, many of them are immigrants into this country.
I am more than ready to believe that the immigrants Blair encounters in his high-powered, wealthy life are driving innovations in AI. It's far more plausible than that Blair understands what AI is, for example. The immigrants of his acquaintance are like the immigrant I married. The ex-Mrs P II has a masters degree and pays not only her taxes but all the visa fees and NHS contributions required of legal immigrants pending acquisition of citizenship or legal right to remain. She's responsible, law-abiding and less likely to trouble the Metropolitan Police than the average native-born Londoner.
I suppose that immigrants of that quality might still present a threat to our culture if there were enough of them, but let's face it there just aren't. Even if there were millions whose arrival would instantly raise our GDP, improve our social order and raise educational standards in our schools such people are thoughtful and polite enough to take note of local culture and make an effort to integrate.
Blair and his metropolitan mates however need to understand that if you're a working class person in Luton or Leicester, those aren't the immigrants you meet. You're far more likely to encounter not just un-educated but viciously mal-educated people with attitudes more suited to England's Middle Ages than its 21st century. Mr Blair, there's nothing racist about them noticing that.
Here's a link to an account of a pogrom in England. I take no pride in that dark history, but I am delighted it's so far in our past. There have been no pogroms in our country in modern times – yet. The kind of immigrants who cause voters concern are those who are more than likely – I personally fear that it's inevitable – to shatter that proud record of peace and tolerance and sully our history with a modern pogrom.
There is a middle ground. Rigorous enforcement of immigration laws, with rapid deportation of illegal immigrants, coupled with a reduction in both the costs of legal immigration and of bureaucratic obstacles to qualified migrants. Making it easier for useful, respectable people to come here, regardless of colour or creed, would confirm (as has long been the case) that Britain is the best place on Earth to be a member of an ethnic minority.
We should be proud of being the least racist country in the world. Excluding and if necessary deporting those who demonstrate – by breaking our laws on the very day of their arrival, by upholding doctrines incompatible with our values or by themselves being racist (anti-semitism counts) – would not in any way contradict that. Unless, as would never be the case under our laws, legal distinctions were made based on race.
Though it's hilarious he can't see how rarified his example is, Blair is right that there are benefits to controlled immigration. Bringing in people of the quality he describes is a good thing. There are however no benefits to importing ignorant, backward enemies of Western civilisation, whatever colour their skin is.
Well put.
I still struggle to understand the governments philosophy on this point.
- failure to deport people who have committed horrible crimes
- failure to strip citizenship (that which was easily given should be easily taken away) from those who do horrible things [re-offending is real, and when someone tells you who they are you should listen]
- ceasing publication of any data which would allow people to see the costs of current policy or the different behaviour of different groups
- lumping of very different foreigners together in any analysis to hide those who are enormous burdens to the state by mixing with those who contribute (non-EU means the american lawyer, the japanese trading house executive, and the hand car washer from x-stan)
- putting large legal obstacles in their own way when it comes to do even basic fixes [we have a high legal burden of proof for imprisonment as it is a serious thing to do, we don't need the same expensive process to disinvite a guest from our home]
- granting citizenship to huge numbers of people who might (or not) be lovely people but are clearly going to be net burdens on the state (most countries require 10-15 years of zero state support before you could even hope to apply) - and at a time when we are bankrupt
We choose to be poor, we choose to have high crime - what beliefs animate all this?
Posted by: isp001 | Thursday, July 25, 2024 at 09:41 AM
Even though Blair did not appear on any ballot paper, it week's he's done an Obama and is the puppet master holding the strings of an inept, mindless, wooden, creature. Note how many ex-Blair political appointees are gradually coming into the fold as "advisers"?
Posted by: Penseivat | Wednesday, July 10, 2024 at 05:29 PM
Nail... head... hit.
Posted by: patently | Tuesday, July 09, 2024 at 02:07 PM