UKIP will announce an immigration policy at this weeks party conference that will ban all immigration for 5 years, after which time immigration will be allowed again with restrictions on who can come in.
This is the kind of immigration policy people have been crying out for for years but none of the parties have had the balls to come out with. Immigration is a problem and the only way to deal with it is to introduce a points-based system like that used in places like Australia and Canada where your suitability for immigration is determined by whether you speak the language, have a job and/or have a useful skill.
Of course, there is one very important pre-requisite to changing immigration policy and that is to leave the EU. We can’t stop slowpeds from Eastern Europe coming over because of EU rules. We can’t put in proper border controls to stop France accidently letting immigrants onto the Eurostar because of EU rules. We can’t send asylum seekers back to the first friendly country they arrived in because of EU rules. We can’t stick asylum seekers on prison ships until their claims are processed because of EU rules.
The One Eyed Wonder of Wankistan, Minge Campbell and Call Me Dave are all eurofederalists. The Tories want to be “in Europe but not run by Europe” but this simply isn’t possible. Membership of the EU requires a transfer of sovereignty and compliance with the stated aims of the EU – the creation of a European Federation. The Schuman Declaration, the treaty that established what has now become the European Union, declared it to be the first step towards a Federal Europe.
Technorati Tags: UKIP, immigration, European Union
You’re right, of course. Even were it possible to ban immigration, the five years would have to be spent on getting rid of the illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers already here.
We also need to make sure that Sc*tland and Wales are not used as alternative points of entry for those who cannot get into what is now the ‘U’K but used to be England. The suggestion was made some time ago that Scotland needs immigrants and should have an immigration policy separate from ‘Br*tain’s’
People think I’m mad when I advocate border controls at Lamberton and Gretna but they will be necessary at some time: those asylum seekers and refugees who are sent to Sc*tland usually move down to London or the South East at the first opportunity.
The trouble is that illegal immigrants will still be coming in. You are only punishing honest folks who try to do it the right way.
Ah, but how many ways are there for an Asylum Seeker to enter the UK without first setting foot in a friendly country? International law says you have to claim asylum in the first friendly country. Unless you’re catching a direct flight to the UK or a non-stop boat or you’re a world record holding endurance swimmer, there is no way you can get here without entering a country where you should, legally, claim asylum. For instance, every asylum seeker found hanging off the bottom of the Eurostar should be put straight back on the train and booted off as soon as the train reaches the other side of the tunnel. France is a friendly country (stop sniggering) and they should have claimed asylum there or, if they arrived in France from another friendly country, from that country. We’re an island, you should be able to count the number of legitimate asylum claims on both hands.
If there were to be immigration controls of the kind advocated by UKIP, the ruling class would be mightily pissed off. I think it’s more rhetoric than anything else, personally.
Recall that at the last election the big business lobby group the CBI warned the Tories away from backing limits on immigration, and so the Tories instead proposed opting out of international treaties on asylum seekers. This seemed to work out okay for the Tory base – largely because the media has merged asylum and immigration in people’s minds, when they are two completely different things.
Immigration is NOT a problem. The unprincipled fear and loathing of people who might not be English (q.v. your post about Polish voters in London) IS a problem. UKIP might get some traction among elderly Daily Express readers with this sort of ill-thought-out lowest-common-denominator rabble-rousing, but they’re not going to win any new supporters with it, as elderly Daily Express readers (or people who think like elderly Daily Express readers) are their core supporters anyway. However, it does now give them a grand total of TWO policies.
they have a lot more than two policies and some of them are quite good if you actuall yread through them.
I do not think that they will be able to get away with the immigration policiy although immigration does have to be reduced or the infratstructure will collapse.
It doesn’t matter if UKIP has loads of other policies — the two most famous ones are not too appealing to the ruling class, which is favourable to both Europe and mass migration from the former socialist countries.
I note that Ukip’s financial backers tend to be industrial capitalists – a rather sidelined bunch in the modern British capitalist class, the greater part of which is dependent upon the status of Britian as a junior partner with the US and Europe — without the US it would be harder to maintain superprofits from around the world and without the EU it would not be possible to keep up the offensive against working people in this country.
I would suggest then, that the occurence of UKIP as a political force was always going to be minimal, especially under the current electoral system. Many of UKIP’s big backers formerly had influence within the Tories and still see the Tories as being the party that will deliver for them. Indeed, UKIP’s leadership has reportedly been making eyes at Cameron…