Harry's Place

In my own research at Harmondsworth: Thank you for this post, Melvyn. Could you tell something more about this research- what it involved and how you came to do it?

This is indeed a sad story. However, Britain is a small island, with our own home grown problems. With a population that has grown by over 12 million in the last 30 or so years – the bulk of which is down to uncontrolled immigration and high birth rates among newcomers, we have to draw the line somewhere.
It is no secret or surprise that whole swathes of Britain are now changed beyond recognition – towns and cities now bear little resemblance to how they were in the 1960’s and 70’s, and whether we like it or not, the indigenous British Population are now turning to Political Parties who promise a solution.
Whilst there are indeed many deserving, genuine Asylum seekers – it is a legal fact that we have no mandatory duty under law (Geneva Convention) to offer asylum to anyone unless the UK were somehow to be ‘the first safe country’. This of course restricts us to Asylum Seekers of French Nationality – not to many of those around!
No – the whole magnetic draw of the UK is based on a flawed and loose Benefits and Welfare system so slack and open to abuse, that anyone who can actually get here has a great chance of simply slipping into the ethnic underworld of Bogus colleges, dodgy catering, minicabs, security and low paid labour with ‘no questions asked’, whilst receiving more money in a week than they could ever get in their own country..
I think it is about time that the whole asylum and immigration systems was overhauled, and a framework of support for the genuine fleeing proven persecution – and forced repatriation or non admittance for the bogus, with rigid criteria and visible enforcement was implemented. Once this was done, their would be no need for BNP or similar – but whilst do-gooder, wishy washy handwringing is preventing this radical course of action, the extremists will gain an increasing share of the popular vote.
For those of you that are involved with helping and supporting immigrants, this may be a hard pill to swallow – but the again, the best medicine always tastes bad!

change is inevitable gary, you can’t stop it. The question is: How do you want it to change? You can’t prevent immigrants from coming to the UK (esspecialy with things happening in the world like in
pakistan). What you can do is try and promote your “British-ness” through education and disscution forums. Maybe even work for a better situation in places like Pakistan.

I am saddened by the poor etiquette of referencing and attribution of intellectual property. Gary took a screed from late 1930, changed “Jews” to “asylum seekers”, “Union of British Fascists” to “BNP” and so on. Fair enough, but you should have honestly acknowledged your original source.

Amie – I meet regulary with detainess as I am helping Haroon Siddique of the Guardian with an article and do some translation work.
Gary – I do indeed agree with many of your points. We cannot take them all, but we cannot reject them all either. The issue is a long and complex one, I hope to do a post in the near future about a solution called Refugia. Land is bought and given to asylum seekers who have failed in the UK or elsewhere. There are yet some uninhabited islands, and there is desert land could be converted into electricity farms with solar powered steam turbines – such as the one that exists in the Negev, for instance.
I do disagree with other points though, and from firsthand experience can tell you that the magnet for many is safety. France is not closer in that many come by plane; geographical proximity does not matter as it used to when we only had ground transportation. Many come from Commonwealth countries and speak English already, you might even be surprised to hear that they root for the England team.
Your last paragraph makes note of bogus asylum seekers. This is sadly a real phenomenon. I will not stick up for them, they not only hurt the British taxpayer, but also genuine asylum seekers. The wishy washy hadwringing dogooders have to accept that, and if we could get them back on a plane to whereever I would be glad.
In drafting the proposal for Refugia, I took on board such facts. Refugia cannot be a state for the lazy – it will be a state for people willing to work hard. It will be unattractive for those who are not so inclined. Thus, those characters will either not seek it out or not be accepted if they do. Hard work on the Kibbutz is what founded Israel, slackers had no place in that nation, whatever one’s attititudes towards Israel today, it got its start because of people willing to work hard. Refugia will follow such example.
Isy – thank you for your note about helping to improve the situation in countries like Pakistan, oh that we could! Sadly I have no solution to propose, my knowledge and power is very limited, or I would have set about such a task long ago.
And many thanks to David T for allowing this post to go up, I hope it makes a difference to the genuine asylum seekers.
Lastly I might note a new blog up on the subject – http://www.freedomforasylumseekers.blogspot.com

I’m not sure what you’re sudgesting here, to fource immigrants to leave the UK and live in a deserted Island without any infrustructure to servive on thier own?

WRITING ASSIGNMENT #101

As Jah-Jah Whatsisname, the Lebanese extremist now in Belgium, said when asked to tell the truth after being publicly exposed by the poor silly Belgian woman whom he’d tricked into marrying him to strengthen his claim to stay in Belgium, “Most asylum seekers tell lies. Mine was that Hamas was trying to kill me and that I had to flee Lebanon in fear of my life …”

YOUR TASK:
Make up a REALLY good asylum-seeker story.

This ought to involve brutal and terrible persecution. Gullible and hospitable Finland will readily admit anyone claiming to be a persecuted Iranian homosexual but you MUST come up with something better than THAT!

You are permitted to ask a Nigerian e-mail trickster for tips on how to exploit the gullibility of simple-minded and warm-hearted Westerners.

From the PressTV website in reader-response to the Great Athenian Qur’an Riot:

WE ARE IN EUROPE AND MILKING YOU AND YOU CAN DO NOTHING

It strikes me that more should be going to places that have more space like the US, Canada, and Australia.

We can also make room by not letting in ones who are looking for asylum because they are in trouble in their countries for trying to overthrow the government and set up a sharia state.

Gary, it is only to be expected that you will be attacked for telling the truth. You will be called ‘racist’ by the usual suspects, those who substitute lazy slogans for rational analysis. You will also be attacked by those who put forward the slippery argument that ‘change must happen’, as though all change is positive and as though negative change cannot be opposed if the will is there. Unfortuinately, the politicians have shown no will, have fallen victim to lazy slogans and have let down the British population.
Britain is indeed a small island, one that has extended a welcome to large numbers of genuine refugees over the years, but there cannot be an unlimited number of immigrants: it is simply not sustainable. Add to that the fact that there are large-scale abuses, abuses that have not been confronted by the politicians due to cowardice, stupidity and inability to distinguish lazy slogans from rational analysis. The result is anger from large numbers of honest people, and once again the ones suffering are the geuine refugees.

change is inevitable gary, you can’t stop it. The question is: How do you want it to change? You can’t prevent immigrants from coming to the UK (esspecialy with things happening in the world like in pakistan).

This is a silly argument, Isy. Most of those who are fully compos mentis wouldn’t argue that ‘change’ is inevitable and nor would they deny genuine asylum seekers the opportunity to come to the UK. The trouble is that you seem to be presenting immigration as a human rights issue fait accompli: there can be no discussion about it; its ‘inevitable’. I contest that it isn’t inevitable and immigration can be turned on and off as simply as tap. All that is needed is the will to make it happen.

What you can do is try and promote your “British-ness” through education and disscution forums. Maybe even work for a better situation in places like Pakistan.

And there are many charities and private individuals who do just that. This doesn’t prevent the UK from having a robust border policy though.

I am saddened by the poor etiquette of referencing and attribution of intellectual property. Gary took a screed from late 1930, changed “Jews” to “asylum seekers”, “Union of British Fascists” to “BNP” and so on. Fair enough, but you should have honestly acknowledged your original source.

It’s a sad fact of life that S.O.Muffin always projects his own feelings of inadequacy onto others. Shutting down debate or smearing others with the guaranteed showstoppers ‘Jews’ and ‘fascists’ is just an excuse for an absence of sound arguments.

Yarbles,

This doesn’t prevent the UK from having a robust border policy

I assume you mean “should not prevent”, not “doesn’t prevent”, because at the moment there is no border policy, let alone a robust one. There is a complete shambles presided over by incompetent fools.

Lauren feels that the warm-hearted Aussies, with their vast open spaces, ought to extend a cheery welcome to asylum seekers from such godawful places as Somalia and Sudan.

Actually, the Aussies have been doing this for a while now. The results of accepting such people as Australian residents can be found within twenty busy minutes searching the ‘net. Please try not to be upset, Lauren!

Actually, Lauren might consider ringing an Aussie of his/her acquaintance and gently enquiring whether ordinary Australians – i.e. not members of the political class – are inclined to welcome more Somalis and Sudanese. Or Kurds or Afghanis, for that matter.

Rockall666

“From the PressTV website in reader-response to the Great Athenian Qur’an Riot:
WE ARE IN EUROPE AND MILKING YOU AND YOU CAN DO NOTHING”

Amazing how an asylum seeker/illegal immigrant can write such perfect English isnt it Rock (without a single mistake)? I mean even speaking perfect English is hard for a foreigner but writing is harder still.
A person whose English is so good they can even use idioms unknown to foreigners (”milking you”) could get a job and earn far more than they could living on benefits

But wait Rock- maybe it wasnt an asylum seeker who wrote that?
More amazing that you cant see through this

It strikes me that more should be going to places that have more space like the US, Canada, and Australia.

Canada is plagued by bogus refugees, many of whom the authorities have lost track of.

The probleme today isn’t so much one of persecuted political refugees as it is economic migrants feeling failed states and economies.

We’re not talking Andrei Sakharov here.

Every time a boatload of people cross the mediterranean, the pressure is eased on the dictatorship from which they’ve come thereby reinforcing the hold these tyrants have on their country.

Ultimately what should be done? The West, and Western Europe in particular, can’t take in endless numbers of these people, and yet with the economic and demographic problemes increasing throughout the Third World, 10s of millions may begin migrating over the next few years.

The graft, corruption and violence so prevalent in many Third World countries, due to various cultural, ethnic and religious infuences, means that the civil order so necessary for economic growth and overall stability never developes.

I don’t think people realise, seeings rapid the demographic grow of the NEAR Third World, just how many of these ‘refugees’ we’re going to be facing in only a few years time. The sheer scale of this migration will make criteria for entry a moot point, and will instead raise questions about the best strategies for keeping them out.

We’ll have to because we simply won’t have the means, the money and the manpower to look after them.

This is morphing from a question of kindness and morality to one of cold, calculating logisitcs.

Is it really the case that the majority of asylum seekers arrive by plane? I thought we didn’t actually know because we do not properly monitor, in some cases do not monitor at all (eg. at weekends) how they arrive with asylum seekers arriving by coach to say Victoria coach station, or entering via the many Channel ports.

Nor can we discount the appeal of the loose UK system which allows in so many and then gives them benefits. We all know that overland refugees, arrive here and claim they have no papers to avoid being sent back. Even now there is a large group amassing on the other side of the Channel keen to leave France and come to the UK.

In interviews I had read a prime reason for this is the lack of identity papers needed to settle in the UK. Much though it pains me to say this, the asylum seekers do not want to settle in France because they have to have official identity papers and residence permits and can be stopped on the street and asked to produce these.

Here in the UK this is not the case. Take Slough, the government cut back grants for things like education and hospitals, based on what it said was the declining birthrate in local hospitals ergo population there is declining. (There are plenty of other examples, Crewe is another case inpoint). The council pointed out the local Social Security office had issued several thousand new NI cards to recent arrivals and then it turned out the cards were being issued before the recipients’ residency status had been cleared -another example of unjoined up government.

So we have genuine asylum seekers, and economic migrants (genuine). Plus bogus asylum seekers just out to cause trouble (like Abu Qatada and Omar Bakri to name two. Plus a lot of illegal immigrants with faked papers which have been ratified by our authorities without proper checking, presumably these are in a grey area as regards status.

Then there are the fake students – the Times has recently exposed the racket in bogus students being allowed in from Pakistan to non existent courses. It turns out issuing their visas has been outsourced to Abu Dhabi – Pakistan being considered too dangerous for our officials these days – passed on the nod. Meanwhile the colleges they attend are listed as approved by the relevant approving authority in the Uk simply by registering their name (and presumably paying a fee), no inspection needed.

I worked for a while at a FE college in Hounslow, and we had a lot of students who had entered the UK via Harmsworth. A big problem was men in their early 20s claiming to be in their teens, just to get registered as a student, and women from places like Ethiopia, registering as students despite speaking no English, to get the benefits like travel, which go with being a student.

Sadly attempts to weed out the fakers are always attacked by the likes of a colleague of mine there, doing a part time MA in Human Rights. He said we should allow in everyone who applied. When I asked where they would all live, he said when he flew to Ireland to visit his relatives, he saw plenty of green fields across England. (He was not being ironic..)

Our current controls are totally inadequate to sift the genuine asylum seekers from the fake ones. How would you distinguish?

Sorry that people have a terrible time in their own country, and would that they could do something positive in the place of their birth to change things for the better. But would they run to places like Britain if there weren’t such generous “benefits” waiting and the eternal support of certain left-wing rabble rousers?

No, I didn’t think so either.

I find it hard to believe that in all of Pakistan there was not one person or organisation that this individual could have turned to: Millions live there and even more in India – why come to the UK when support for the family’s cause would be more effective if contucted closer to home.

Were one very cynical, one could argue that the UK providing Asylum actually helps despotic governments. The people they manage to cow, they continue to cow. The stroppy minority go elsewhere, rather than foment rebellion.

It strikes me as odd that we accept as asylum seekers people who are being oppressed by countries that we maintain friendly relationships with. Either they are hideous despots, in which case we should tell them so, or they aren’t, in which case we should look carefully at claims of oppression and get the friendly government to deal with them.

For fuck’s sake why is my comment in the moderation queue?

Talk about courage!

I don’t find the Pakistani orphan’s story believable. Too many things wrong with it.

Amazing how an asylum seeker/illegal immigrant can write such perfect English isnt it Rock (without a single mistake)? I mean even speaking perfect English is hard for a foreigner but writing is harder still.

Many “asylum seekers” speak good english and can make use of idioms.

What people here don’t understand, or perhaps refuse to admit, is that many of these people aren’t so much fleeing persecution, rather they’re running after all the attractive welfare benefits they know they’ll recieve once in the country.

There was a case of a Tunesian imam who arrived in Canada as a refugee and claimed he’d be tortured and imprisoned if sent back.

He was an incendiary speaker, a rtabid fundamentalis, who had spent his entire time here living on benfits. After some serious doubts arose the authorities began deportation hearings. It dragged on for over two years and cost serveal million dollars, but he was finally sent back on a private plane.

Upon arriving in Tunesia, the Tunesian authorities claimed they’d never even heard of him, that he’s never been imprisoned, let alone tortured and wasn’t wanted for any crimes and wasn’t even know to the authorities

Those individuals who had so robustly advocated against his deportation, and who had naively swallowed his every line, found themselves not just red-faced, but also seriously discredited.

The guy was a pro.

Why do refugee advocates consistently underestimate the intelligence and savvy of these very cunning people?

Why do they automaticaly think that a brown skinnned person is naive, ignorant and vulnerable when in fact many have done their homewark before embarking on their migration. Many of these people have been coached ahead of time; they know exactly what to do, what to say, how to act and where to go.

And they do this in ways similar to us when we’re deciding on where to go on vacation.

The mull over the various welfare benefits of various countires, and then decide upon a destination.

The whole situation now resembles a kind of reverse tourism; it is a business and an industry with the criminal organisers of these “refugee” convoys raking in billions of dollars of profits every year.

Like I said earlier, we’re not talking Andrei Sakharov here.

Whilst there are indeed many deserving, genuine Asylum seekers – it is a legal fact that we have no mandatory duty under law (Geneva Convention) to offer asylum to anyone unless the UK were somehow to be ‘the first safe country’.

Exactly.

Oh my, your story implied that a country in the middle east is horribly oppressive and brutal in a way Israel has never been.

I predicted that as a result it will be almost impossible to tell the SWP fascists in a lather from the BNP fascists in this thread.

And which one of those are you, Josh?

Please can’t my comments pass the moderators a little bit faster? Thanks so much.

I contest that it isn’t inevitable

Erratum: I contend that it isn’t inevitable…

On another issue, this WPR briefing from Nathan Lane on Obama’s speech is worth a look. As is WPR in general this week with plenty of insightful verbiage on the Lebanese elections…

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=3876

“Many arrive with only the shirt on their back”, After crossing a dozen other countrys border’s and spending a fortune on people smugglers.

Face fact’s it’s the social security system that’s the real draw.

“Whilst there are indeed many deserving, genuine asylum seekers-it is a legal fact that we have no mandatory duty under law (Geneva Convention) to offer asylum tp anyone unless the UK were somehow to be “the first safe country”.

That should be chiseled in stone in twenty languages at every British air and sea port.

Can anyone produce any hard statistics about these ‘boat loads’ of asylum seekers, like numbers etc

I’ll start the ball rolling…

Asylum applications to the UK have fallen by almost three quarters over the last five years. (Source: UNHCR, Asylum levels and trends in industrialised countries 2006, 23 March 2007)

The UK is home to less than 3% of the world’s refugees – around 290,000 out of 8.4 million worldwide. (Source: UNHCR, 2005 Global refugee trends, 9 June 2006)

Can anyone who is posting up stuff like
“From the PressTV website in reader-response to the Great Athenian Qur’an Riot:
WE ARE IN EUROPE AND MILKING YOU AND YOU CAN DO NOTHING”
substantiate it with actual links?

well?

The UK is home to less than 3% of the world’s refugees

And this is remotely relevant how, exactly?

The welfare state is the draw.
We are the world’s No 1 target for asylum seekers, if adjusted for native population, or for space.
Raw numbers show us to be 3d or 4th after France (wonder why so many like Calais). We have no moral obligation to take anyone, but since we’re a nice bunch, we should probably welcome a few hundred a year, provided they are easily assimilable (Gurkhas don’t count as asylum seekers, they’re honorary Brits)

Ask yourself this. If Wales & Scotland were at war, where would English asylum seekers go ? they would not go to Eritrea, Somalia, Bangladesh,
Afghanistan etc etc. Unless of course those countries offered benefits comparable to winning the lottery back home.

If do gooders want to spend money on the world’s grubby, illiterate & violent poor – start in the UK’s sink estates.

Martin

Yet another sob story. Who even cares if this particular saga is true ? I certainly don’t and I expect my opinion is shared by most real people from these Islands. So Herr Kohn, dry your eyes.

Harmondsworth isn’t far from Heathrow is it ?

“We are the world’s No 1 target for asylum seekers, if adjusted for native population, or for space.” is an entertainingly intellectually dishonest statement…

you can’t adjust the number of people seeking asylum by the space or the existing popultion when determining popularity, that’s as absurd as saying ‘obscure norwegian death metal band is the number one most popular guitar band in the world if adjusted for size of music scene’.

John P: Every time a boatload of people cross the mediterranean

CB: Can anyone produce any hard statistics about these ‘boat loads’ of asylum seekers, like numbers etc

I don’t know about statistics (a simple Google will no doubt reap untold rewards), but asylum seekers and economic migrants clearly do arrive in boats all across the northern Mediterranean and Canary Islands…how else would they arrive?

By taking John’s factually correct description of ‘boatloads’ and changing the context to fit your perspective, it’s YOU who is being ‘intellectually dishonest’…

On another point, I’m not sure that I like the cut of Mr Kohn’s jib: he appears to be insinuating that Britain (and by implication Britons) was less than generous in allowing Europeans to settle in the UK during the dark days of WW2. He also seems to be comparing Anthony Eden and Ernest Bevin with the BNP.

I’m willing to wager that this isn’t the first time Mr Kohn has made such accusations, revealing a bitter prejudice towards Britons and the Britain of yesteryear. Indeed, I have no difficulty in placing him in the same category as those who make empty, baseless accusations that Dalston-based policemen (which ones and which Dalston police station?) were anti-Semitic or, according to another poster on here, those who make sweeping statements about pre-WW2 and wartime Britain’s ‘extensive’ anti-Semitism based on nothing more than a few letters written at the time and preserved at Sussex University.

Needless to say, I’m not very sympathetic towards this category of people.

What is this “indigenous British population” that Gary mumbles about? I have French ancestry on my father’s side, and Irish on my mother’s – so do I fit the definition?

Britain has been built out of waves of invasion and immigration, and the shape of the population has repeatedly changed over the centuries. Would Gary have thrown Joseph Conrad out because he was born in Poland and was originally named Konrad Korzeniowski?

I suspect not – for the one thing that Joseph Conrad and I share, and which probably qualifies us as Brits, is the whiteness of our skins. All this stuff about the “indigenous” population is just a smokescreen. What Gary and co are really saying is – keep the blacks out.

As for towns and cities changing unrecognizeably over the space of a few decades – of course they have, and overall they’ve changed for the better. I remember the London of my childhood in the 50s and early 60s as a boring and uninspiring place.

Contrary to Gary’s beliefs most refugees do not hop on a plane to Heathrow. Most of the world’s refugees are in Africa – 97,000 Congolese and 336,000 Burundians in Tanzania, a quarter of a million Sudanese in Chad, another 160,000 Sudanese in Uganda, 200,000 Somalis in Kenya, to cite just a few of the most prominent examples.

These are poor coutries, much less able to cope with migratory flows than Britain is. Yet you don’t hear Tanzanians whining about how their country is becoming overcrowded, and what a raw deal the “indigenous Tanzanian population” is getting.

Yarbles you might like to familiarise yourself with the airplane, it’s a miraculous machine which enables flight….

I’m so very sorry for expecting people using emotive anti-assylum arguments to back up these with actual evidence. Actually I’m not, and you and your freinds seeming inablity to use google to provide evidence to back up your arguements speaks volumes.

Predictably depressing.

“You are permitted to ask a Nigerian e-mail trickster for tips on how to exploit the gullibility of simple-minded and warm-hearted Westerners.”

Hmmm. But only half of that formulation is correct in Rocakall666’s case, isn’t it, you bovine cunt? Fuck off, you piece of fucking trash. You’re a wretched dribbling embarassment to Britons everywhere.

Now where was I? Ah yes.

People often (predicatably, because there is much more heat than light on this issue) conflate economic migration with refugees. The government actively encourages the former, for better or ill. This is what people tend to get upset with. There are far, far fewer refugees. It isn’t really a major issue. And these are people being “pushed” by persecution rather than “pulled” by the lure of the bright lights. There are very few refugees in the world – it takes a lot to make someone uproot their life and throw themselves on the mercy of an unknown state.

Of course, there are some people who are not being persecuted who apply, and then there are those in a grey area. I support, as does the government, a speedy and fair process that results in the deportation of failed asylum seekers swiftly. I also support such a process because that will enable successful asylum seekers to get on with building a new life in the UK sooner rather than later. The less time they all have to spend in asylum detention centres, the better.

The level of inaccuracy in this thread is pretty shocking, but what is more shocking is the level of inhumanity. You don’t have to be some soft-touch self-flagellating liberal to see that.

Quite a few commenters need to Fuck. Right. Off.

paul F – sadly it is not merely a case of disguised racism. There was a fascinating television programme about Crewe a couple of years ago. Crewe has had an influx of Polish workers. White Christian and certainly not resented by the locals on racist grounds.

But there had been no planning for them to come and bring their families, which they did, placing a lot of pressure on schools and hospitals locally which had insufficient beds and school places etc.

When the council appealed for help to the government they were basically told to go away and get on with it. (And remember most of a council’s income now comes from the government as redistibuted rates).

This laisser-faire approach might work with small numbers of immigrants in individual communities but not with the “there is no limit” to the number we can assimilate, policy adopted by the government until quite recently.

Nor can it be denied that immigrants with a greater than average share of health problems (many third world countries) and no spoken English (EU and third world) pose strains on the health and education systems which were never planned for.

ben – what mechanisms and procedures is the government using to distinguish between genuine refugees and those who are economic migrants/bogus student/illegal criminals? I should be interested to hear?

John P: Every time a boatload of people cross the mediterranean CB: Can anyone produce any hard statistics about these ‘boat loads’ of asylum seekers, like numbers etc

How on earth can one produce statistics about an illegal INDUSTRY run by mafiosos?

Refugee claims are down possibly because it’s become so much easier and surer to just enter countries illegally, obtain fake identity papers, and then go to town.

The real “immigration” authorities these days are those criminal gangs that traffic in human beings and who offer them a none-too-safe passage to The West for an exhorbitant fee.

Southern Europe is flooded by these migrants. Italy, Spain, Greece and Malta are at wits end as to what to do about the probleme. In fact, in the case of Italy it’s a major factor in drumming up support for right wing parties.

Asylum seekers, TRUE asylum seekers are another matter and must have their cases considered in an efficient and expediant manner because their lives may well be in immedaite danger.

When we speak of refugees these days we’re no longer talking about Soviet dissidents.

Britons have only to go to Calais and check out the afgan and Pakistani MIGRANTS parked in “refugee” centres, migrants who’ve paid passage to mafiosos, and who are now waiting their chance to make if to England.

Individuals who make a choice to leave their country, to pay fees to thugs who traffic in human beings and who then migrate to the country of their choice are NOT refugees.

We need to make some distinctions.

What started out as honest and sincere humanitarian programme to aid and assist people whose lives were endangered has now become nothing but an industry run by mafiosos an industry that preys on people who then often die when en route.

Hmm, I count as a friend a Pakistani apostate blogger who got refugee status in Canada.

Interestingly, when he was looking for a little help with his meager lawyer’s fee during his hearing, Harry’s Place refused my plea to post an article about him. I think I wrote David and Gene and was ignored…

Why, by the way? No doubt because the man, (who by the way is an apostate and pro-western and perfectly civilized in all ways, and had written extensively exposing many horribly hateful things about the society he was escaping) – because he had this major flaw – he’s a [mostly economic] conservative. Entirely beyond the pale here in HP land. Throw him back!

Well I’m not even a conservative, but I understand why he would be… who showed him understanding, the right or the left? Which side cares about principles like democracy now, the right or the left? Also his major was economics, and that tends to spawn conservative attitudes.. But what ever the reasons, I want people like him here, even though I argue with him socialized medicine, labor etc…

What is this “indigenous British population” that Gary mumbles about? I have French ancestry on my father’s side, and Irish on my mother’s – so do I fit the definition?

But you’re not exactly representative Paul…

‘What is the indigenous _____ population?’ is the sort of question employed by the serially dishonest who try to imply that, by using the word ‘indigenous’, the person is a ‘racialist’.

Any number of serious scientific studies have shown clearly who the British indigenous population is:

“The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago…”

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/origins_of_the_british.html

_ _ _ _ _

“There’s been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it’s now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons’ genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age,” Miles said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Your question to Garry implies that he’s asserting you’re not British…which, of course, is not at all what he’s saying (but then you knew that).

Britain has been built out of waves of invasion and immigration,

No, it hasn’t. This is a myth cultivated by those wish to deny the truth…like you. See the articles cited above, for example.

and the shape of the population has repeatedly changed over the centuries.

No, it hasn’t. Again, see the articles cited above.

Would Gary have thrown Joseph Conrad out because he was born in Poland and was originally named Konrad Korzeniowski?

Yet another straw man. Garry makes no such suggestions or even anything close to it.

Joseph Conrad was born in the Ukraine…to Polish parents. That’s at least 3 factual inaccuracies in 2 paragraphs…why would anyone believe anything that you’ve got to say after this, Paul?

What Gary and co are really saying is – keep the blacks out.

No, he’s not. This is what you’re saying. Your libelous gloss on Garry’s words is an attempt at projecting your own prejudices onto an innocent commenter.

and overall they’ve changed for the better. I remember the London of my childhood in the 50s and early 60s as a boring and uninspiring place.

I don’t share your opinion of towns and cities, least of all London. Petty and violent crime is endemic. Whilst this may or may not be correlative to the ‘changing face’ of Britain’s towns and cities, we can infer from migration patterns that a significant number of Britons would rather not live in London or the other major cities.

My father was born in Stepney and my mother in Plaistow. Neither are particularly complementary of modern London compared to the early post-war years in spite of the poverty then.

I suggest that your view of towns and cities ‘changing for the better’ is unrepresentative. This is my opinion and I don’t have any related statistical evidence to back this up.

Contrary to Gary’s beliefs most refugees do not hop on a plane to Heathrow.

Another straw man. This may be one of Gary’s beliefs, but there’s no way to infer this from anything that he has written…more false attributions, Paul!

Yet you don’t hear Tanzanians whining about how their country is becoming overcrowded

How many Tanzanians do you know? Do you speak Kiswahili?

All in all a very poor contribution from you, Paul. Mired in straw men, factual errors and false attributions.

Yarbles you might like to familiarise yourself with the airplane, it’s a miraculous machine which enables flight….

Very drole…I notice you haven’t apologised to John for playing semantic games with his comment.

I’m so very sorry for expecting people using emotive anti-assylum arguments to back up these with actual evidence.

Don’t be! It’s perfectly reasonable to expect those who make claims to back them up with hard evidence; to differentiate fact from opinion.

Again, though, you’re playing games: you’ll notice that I took issue with your first comment and your recontexualisation of John’s term ‘boatload’…and NOT your second comment challenging Martin’s statement.

Actually I’m not, and you and your freinds seeming inablity to use google to provide evidence to back up your arguements speaks volumes.

What a conspiracy theorist you are! I don’t need to use Google as there’s nothing I’ve written on this thread that isn’t either established fact or opinion…and I’ve made it clear where facts end and opinions begin.

This is a baseless allegation and it speaks volumes about your own agenda.

@Ben

People often (predicatably, because there is much more heat than light on this issue) conflate economic migration with refugees.

Do they? Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to back this up?

The level of inaccuracy in this thread is pretty shocking,

If, as you say, inaccuracies abound, wouldn’t it be more constructive to outline them and corroborate the ‘facts’, as you see them?

Quite a few commenters need to Fuck. Right. Off.

In one longish comment, you’ve managed to demonstrate your own penchant for vituperation. And you seem to be imitating the Graham or Lofty Academic™ style guide to negative commenting. Might I be so bold as to suggest that you partake of a long cold shower, simmer down, and return with a more creative approach?

‘It is no secret or surprise that whole swathes of Britain are now changed beyond recognition – towns and cities now bear little resemblance to how they were in the 1960’s and 70’s’

They probably bear little resemblance to how they were in the Middle Ages as well.

Good. Some of us prefer living in the present day to living in bygone ages.

I’m left wondering why so many anti-immigrant types are so keen to pretend they’re not the same as BNP supporters, when they’re clearly exactly the same.

‘I think it is about time that the whole asylum and immigration systems was overhauled, and a framework of support for the genuine fleeing proven persecution – and forced repatriation or non admittance for the bogus, with rigid criteria and visible enforcement was implemented. Once this was done, their would be no need for BNP or similar’

In other words, if Britain adopted a fascist policy on immigration and race, the British fascist party would become redundant.

I concede the point.

Mr Hoare is right, the towns have changed since the Middle Ages. Now, why would that be? Could it be the development of capitalism and the bourgoisie? I often think that we are witnessing the return of the eighteenth century and the rapid industrialisation of Britain with all it’s attendant horrors. Frequently, I read stories in the papers that are straight out of the eighteenth century. The latest scandal is of some child starved to death by her mother and her mother’s partner, as a form of punishment. Then, there are the brothels that are hidden away and service the population of men who have come her to work without their wives. Yes, these are all the birth pangs of a new world order. The arbitrary murders, stabblings and drugdealing, all remind me most forcefully of Britain in the eighteenth and nineteeth century. Does he think this unrestricted right to emigrate should be rieciprocal? I mean I wonder if there would be a job for me if I moved to Pakistan or Bosnia? and if not, isn’t it a joke to talk about ‘free movement’?

‘Take Slough…’

Please!

Good. Some of us prefer living in the present day to living in bygone ages.

So you believe in change for the sake of change? You think that when a building deteriorates, for example, it becomes better because it’s the “present” and not a “bygone age”? This argument has no merit at all.

I’m left wondering why so many anti-immigrant types are so keen to pretend they’re not the same as BNP supporters, when they’re clearly exactly the same.

When you say “clearly”, you prove that you are talking nonsense. And like so many other argument-challenged posters, you think that shouting “BNP” proves something. It does not.

Lofty Academic™ style guide to negative commenting

Speaking of which…

I’m left wondering why so many anti-immigrant types are so keen to pretend they’re not the same as BNP supporters, when they’re clearly exactly the same.

I can’t imagine why you’d be wondering such things on this thread, given that nobody, even the oft-maligned Gary, have demonstrated any antipathy towards immigrants per se.

In other words, if Britain adopted a fascist policy on immigration and race, the British fascist party would become redundant.

I assume you’ve read Jeff Randall’s piece some years back?

By encouraging the greatest wave of unchecked arrivals that these islands have ever experienced, the Blair regime has eroded our traditions of tolerance and understanding, while forcing fundamental social change on millions who never voted for it.

I don’t pretend to be any sort of expert on non-Islamist political movements, but asserting that serious reform of the asylum and immigration system equates to ‘a fascist policy’ is a schoolboy error of the worst order.

The ironic thing is that, in spite of his ideological EUphilia, our resident lofty academic should really be projecting his vomit at that particular squirming mass of bloated plutocrats. Come Lisbon’s legal personality, there won’t even be a pretence (as is the status quo) that the UK retains sovereignty over her borders.

That veritable font of information, Euractiv, has all the nitty-gritty:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/justice/illegal-immigration-asylum-border-control/article-117508

Also, see:

http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefingPaper/document/82

http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefingPaper/document/156

‘The Tunisian authorities said…they’d never imprisoned him let alone tortured him.’

Well, that’s cleared that one up, then.

“but asserting that serious reform of the asylum and immigration system equates to ‘a fascist policy’ is a schoolboy error of the worst order.”

Simply The ‘lefts’ default position on anyone who disagrees with them.

The reasoning of credulous schoolboys/girls programed by years of ‘education’ in the wonderful world of Left wing Idiot’ology.
‘They don’t agree with me so they must be Fascists because my Idiot’ology is obviously the one true path to salvation’ because my Left wing teacher told me it was, so it’s true.

Good Post melvyn.

I am always so pissed off by the often willful confounding of asylum vs Immigration.

The first step is not to state them as Asylum AND Immigration.

In fact Asylum and bogus seekers (yes there must be some) is such a red herring.

Asylum seekers are a trickle compared to the hundreds of thousands that have been admitted as migrants annualy over the last 15 years.

I see the twin cause as racists who do not want anyone here lest of all ’scroungers pretending persecution’ vs the so called anti-racists who oppose any discussion of the grounds on which we could have a legitimate and non discriminatroy immigration policy as racist.

So in order to look tough the government gets all draconion with some of the most vulnerable people in the world who by being honest and in desperate straits become trapped whithin officialdom where enormous recources are put into creating insuperable obstacles of proof in order to deport them .

Anyone who was really dishonest would simply come here on a student visa and dissapear.

The government puts no resources into indentifying and deporting such people unless they are honest enough to reappear and regularise their status.

This is all disgraceful, cruel and crazy.

Crazy because we actually have treaty obligations in respect of asylum that bind us unless we wish to diplomatically be seen to be uncivilised.

Whereas an Immigration policy (and we are not in Shengen) is entirely whitin the legislatures hands.

A bit of backbone to face down the tiny minority of racists and the tiny minority of completely unreasonable so called anti-racist would mean that a rational fair immigration policy like that of New Zealand or Australia could be drawn up and clearly shown to be reasonable, in the nations interests and non racist.

The fact that so few people actually voted for the BNP relatively shows that the vast majority of people immigrant and nationals alike are concerned about uncheked mass immigration.

A real immigration policy would deal with this and mean that we could honour our treaty obligations with out all this really nasty, creepy bullying.

We should simply honour our bloody treaty obligations and explain exactly why we do.

This has beeen one of the most serious failures of political leadership for years now and threatens our real gains in developing a strong anti-racist national conscience.

Yarbles’ claim that Britain has not been built on successive waves of invasion and immigration is estraordinary.

Has he never heard of Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans, to name the most obvious? The English language itself was shaped by these invaders.

As for immigrants, does Yarbles imagine that the substantial Jewish community has been in Britain since the Stone Age? And why should the orthodox jews of Stoke Newington be considered more British than the Bengalis of Tower Hamlets? Just because they arrived a bit earlier?

Yarbles claims that petty and violent crime is endemic in today’s London. He clearly has read nothing about crime in London in the 18th century (befoe Peel’s policing reforms) – and there wern’t many moslem asylum seekers around in those days.

Even in what he regards as the halcyon days of the mid 20th century, London was the scene of notorious organised crime operatons and gangland killings, of which those committed by the Kray brothers are the best known.

Yarbles is lamenting the passing of a supposedly golden age – but reactionaries in every time have always imagined that things are going to the dogs, and that life was much better decades (or centuries) ago.

I find his vision of a homogenous “indigenous” British culture deeply mean-spirited. A Britain on the lines he envisages would not be a place where I would wish to live.

Concerned by stander,this country is FULL,its ideal population should be around 30 million people,that would make our population density similar to that of France.
For those fools who say’next time you are in an aeroplane just see how much space there is’ the reply should be,I want to live in an urban area which is not choked with too many people,not in the middle of a field.
We can do more good in the world as a rich 1st world country than one which is full of ‘asylum seekers’ sponging off you and me and making us bankrupt in the process.
Sakarov like most asylum seekers was a middle aged intellectual and I for one would welcome people of his calibre to my country.Most people claiming asylum are younger and are bogus,ok I freely admit I have no evidence,but on the balance of probabilities I know the sun will rise tomorrow.
We are a soft touch pure and simple.
We could always in conjuction with other countries lease or buy land in the developing world and send them there.
The genuine asylum seekers would have every opportunity to benefit themselves and their host country,the spongers would stay put in there own countries.
How about Scotland?

paul fauvet have you never heard of Professor Bryan Sykes?

A cut and paste for your convenience Mr Fauvet

“Blood of the Isles”

“In his 2006 book Blood of the Isles (published in the United States and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland), Sykes examines British genetic “clans”. He presents evidence from mitochondrial DNA, inherited by both sexes from their mothers, and the Y chromosome, inherited by men from their fathers, for the following points:
The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period, and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line.
The contribution of the Celts of continental Europe to the genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland was minimal.
The Picts were not a separate people: the genetic makeup of the formerly Pictish areas of Scotland shows no significant differences from the general profile of the rest of Britain.
The Anglo-Saxons made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, but in Sykes’s opinion it was under 20 percent of the total, even in southern England.
The Vikings (Danes and Norwegians) also made a substantial contribution, which is concentrated in central, northern, and eastern England – the territories of the ancient Danelaw. There is a very heavy Viking contribution in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, in the vicinity of 40 percent. Women as well as men contributed substantially in all these areas, showing that the Vikings engaged in large-scale settlement.
The Norman contribution was extremely small, on the order of 2 percent.
There are only sparse traces of the Roman occupation, almost all in southern England.
In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic: a mixture of the first Mesolithic inhabitants with Neolithic settlers who came by sea from Iberia and ultimately from the eastern Mediterranean.
There is a difference between the genetic histories of men and women in Britain and Ireland . The matrilineages show a mixture of original Mesolithic inhabitants and later Neolithic arrivals from Iberia, whereas the patrilineages are much more strongly correlated with Iberia. This suggests (though Sykes does not emphasize this point) replacement of much of the original male population by new arrivals with a more powerful social organization.
There is evidence for a “Genghis Khan effect”, whereby some male lineages in ancient times were much more successful than others in leaving large numbers of descendants.”

Please don’t attempt to accuse the Professor of being a neo-con stooge, because scientific evidence unlike political ideology is not a ‘personal belief’ it’s scientific fact, in this case Genetic fact, which I for will accept until the day it can be ‘proven’ scientifically, to be in error.

I have cut and pasted this comment before but obviously once is not enough.

Paul Fauvet: Although this country was administered by the Romans, there were not substantial numbers of Romans living here. They ruled through Celtic chieftains who knew what side their bread was buttered on, and in an agarian world, there is no way that proletarians can float round the world, they are tied to the land. The Vikings and Saxons, yes, rather more of them came and intermarried, but genetic studies have shown that to be localised. The Vikings were mainly in the north. My husband, who comes from Somerset told me once that you never see a blonde person in Somerset because the Vikings never got that far. The Saxons spread out across the middle of England, Essex/Wessex/Middlesex/Sussex. The Normans spread out throughout Britain, but I don’t know how many actually came over. It’s true that William distributed land to his Norman knights, and they introduced the feudal system to Britain, so I expect there were a few sub-tenants who were Norman as well. As for the Jews. I’d just like to say, and this may upset some people but I feel for the sake of completeness, that many English people do not feel that Jews are fully British. Especially when they are dressed in a completely different way to ‘normal’ British people. Whether you accept Jews/blacks/Indians etc as ‘British’ partly depends on what you mean by ‘British’ and your political persuasion. As for the point about the eighteenth century, I covered that in my earlier post, which I assume you haven’t read. Yes, there were organised gangs operating in London in the 20th century, but as far as I can recall, we did not have the large groups of youth fighting over territory and the rights of drug distribution or even because they are the wrong sort of black. You talk abuot a homogenuous ‘indigenous’ British culture. Well, aren’t you ignoring the class aspect? No-body mentions class these days, everything is discussed in terms of ’srace’ or ‘ethnicity’. If you take a ‘class’ view of society, then there is conflict in society, but one can say that in the last few hundred years religion and the Church have not been very important in British life. I find your remarks about ‘indigenous’ culture rather sneering. You speak, read and write English don’t you? You drive on the left? You have certain expectations of responsiblities fo the state? You’ve been active in African politics. Would you say the same to the Mozambiquess or South Africans? Why is Britain uniquely not allowed to acknowledge her historical continuity? Where do you want to end up? What’s your vision of Britain in thirty years time?

Yarbles’ claim that Britain has not been built on successive waves of invasion and immigration is estraordinary.

It’s not originally *my* claim, Paul. I’m not a demographer, population geneticist or anthropologist by trade. The scientific evidence (as opposed to your subjective opinion) has been collated, analysed and presented for peer review by some of the foremost brains in these fields. If you disagree with them, then kindly do your own research and present your findings.

Also, your use of the contextually unscientific term ‘built on’ doesn’t help your cause. Precisely, what do you mean by employing this particular phrasal verb?

As for immigrants, does Yarbles imagine that the substantial Jewish community has been in Britain since the Stone Age? And why should the orthodox jews of Stoke Newington be considered more British than the Bengalis of Tower Hamlets? Just because they arrived a bit earlier?

I’m not following your logic here: what have Lubavitchers and Sylhetis got to do with you perpetuating the myth that Britain does not have a substantial population sharing a common indigenous genetic inheritance?

Yarbles claims that petty and violent crime is endemic in today’s London. He clearly has read nothing about crime in London in the 18th century (befoe Peel’s policing reforms) – and there wern’t many moslem asylum seekers around in those days.

There are more murders, stabbings and muggings in London than ever before.

You’re right. I haven’t read much about historical crime statistics.

Why bring up ‘moslem [sic]‘ asylum seekers? You seem to be suggesting that there’s a correlation between specifically Muslim asylum seekers and crime…do you have any evidence to back this up? It’s quite an accusation!

Even in what he regards as the halcyon days of the mid 20th century, London was the scene of notorious organised crime operatons and gangland killings, of which those committed by the Kray brothers are the best known.

You used the adjective ‘halcyon’…I didn’t. If you’re suggesting that violent crime (murder, rape, GBH etc.) was more prevalent during the post-war years, do you have any evidence to back up your assertion?

I find his vision of a homogenous “indigenous” British culture deeply mean-spirited. A Britain on the lines he envisages would not be a place where I would wish to live.

My vision? What on earth has given you that idea? I’ve made no such claim and nor would I…and nor has anyone else for that matter.

Paul. Might I suggest that, instead of ‘reacting’ as I’m sometimes guilty of doing when I read something that I don’t agree with, you carefully consider your arguments before:

a) falsely attributing ideas, ‘views’ and whole paragraphs to fellow commenters

b) basing your criticism on opinion as opposed to fact

Best wishes and God bless

If you remember what the title of this thread is, it’s “Immigration and Asylum Policies fail torture victims”. Arguable enough, but it’s worth considering just how many torture victims are generated in this country. I am not a racist, but I am a serious “culturalist” in the sense that I believe some cultures are vastly superior to others. Come here and fit into our culture of tolerance and the rule of law, and you’re welcome. Come here and try to introduce into our country one bit of the culture which forced you into exile, and you can fuck right off. We’ll fail the torture victims all right if we introduce any part of the political culture which tortured them. Likewise, Salman Rushdie and Mohammed cartoons are a big part of the reason why we are an attractive destination for those persecuted or reduced to poverty in Muslim countries, so bear that in mind if you want to stay here.

According to the Jeff Randall piece that Yarbles links to above:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2944137/Immigration—how-New-Labour-got-the-numbers-completely-wrong.html

‘Three years ago, Britain had 600,000 job vacancies. Since then, there has been a net inflow of 700,000 legal workers and who knows how many illegal. Yet, the number of unfilled posts is still 600,000. The reason for this paradox is that, as well as providing services, immigrants also consume them. They add to demand as well as supply. Simply by going shopping, buying a coffee, catching a bus, they create jobs, thereby sucking in yet more immigrants.’

Has everyone got that ? ‘they create jobs’. They ‘add to demand as well as supply’. They ‘provide services’.

And how about this:

‘By lowering wages, migrants enable the middle classes to hire more home-caterers, dog-walkers, house-cleaners and hedge-trimmers for less cost than before.’

So immigrants reduce prices and provide cheaper services (Randall’s cunning attempt to play the class-warfare card notwithstanding).

On the basis of this anti-immigration article, it turns out that immigration stimulates the economy, creates jobs and economic growth, and makes services cheaper for the ‘middle classes’.

Frankly, if immigration also involves the erosion of ‘traditional British culture’, as practised by people who wish we were still living in the 1960s or 1970s, then that’s a price I’m willing to pay.

I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but people sometimes lie for personal gain. It would be pretty easy to make up something like this. All he’d have to do before he leaves is go on the internet (Yes, they do have the internet in Pakistan!) and take a look at the websites of groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, ect. All he’d have to do is make up some story inspired by the ones he’s read on the websites and hey presto, he’s in!

If you simply take their word for it, you’ll have a de facto open borders policy. We need to ask for proof, otherwise everyone trying to enter the country will come out with some false sob story of persecution and be immediately admitted. I’d even look at physical evidence with a great deal of scepticism, these people could quite easily self harm. There was that guy before who sewed his mouth up in an attempt to stop his deportation. If someone’s determined to do that, then there would certainly be people willing to self harm to gain entry.

“Frankly, if immigration also involves the erosion of ‘traditional British culture’, as practised by people who wish we were still living in the 1960s or 1970s, then that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

Yes, it’s easy to tie people down to a particular period of time which had a lot wrong with it. What about women’s rights to marry or get involved with whom they like? What about a novelist’s right to publish a novel engaging with a historical figure in his own way? Those are actually quite important, and people who will use violence to prevent them are people we could fucking well do without.

anaximander

Similarly however Anglo-Saxon-Friesan genes show strong patrilineal inheritance of up to 50% Y chromosme in Mid and eastern England.

I’ll try and dig out the paper that argues that a small founding population of warrior males of 5% or so together with an apartheid like social structure with Anglo males at the top displacing many Celtic males, then out breeding the rest via greater reproductive access to fertile women could have produced this 20-50% figure in just a few generations.

There is indeed a Ghengis Khan effect. arecent find in Silurian territory of the M4 by Chepstow has found a coonurbation with continuous habitation from 5000 BC until 400 AD.

Tacitus desriptions of the Silurians being short and dark like the Iberians seems to be an accurate observation.

I would like to add, while I am in the recycling previous comments mode, on the understanding that is, that it’s not deemed ‘off topic’ and deleted

That Facts Only Matter In Science, in Politics and Religion they are Ignored.

Example 1: There are to many Humans Living in the UK. That is MY opinion.

Example 2: Because of the worldwide, decade on decade increase in the growth of the Human world Population, there will come a time when the Earth will not be able sustain the Human Population . That is the OPINION of an ever increasing group of people.

Example 3: Example 2 is a neo-con plot, the planet Earth can sustain Human population growth indefinitely and anyone who says it cannot must be a Fascist. That is the OPINION of most of the ‘Left’.

Example 4: Pi is approximately equal to 3.14159. That is a mathematical FACT

Example 5: E=mc². That is a scientific FACT.

Got it?

Marko

‘By lowering wages, migrants enable the middle classes to hire more home-caterers, dog-walkers, house-cleaners and hedge-trimmers for less cost than before.’

Oh how wonderful. And what will their children do Marko ? the same Jobs? or maybe as citizens born here they will want to do anyhting they are capable of and so they should.

‘it turns out that immigration stimulates the economy, creates jobs and economic growth, and makes services cheaper for the ‘middle classes’.

Frankly, if immigration also involves the erosion of ‘traditional British culture’, as practised by people who wish we were still living in the 1960s or 1970s, then that’s a price I’m willing to pay’.

Dispicable.

Well unfortunately for you the majority of British people still define themsevles as working class and don’t have servants.

The quality of most peoples lives will thus decline while yours improves, and you have the audacity to present blatant personal advantage as anti-racism.

Trim your own hedge BNP ENABLER.

Mettaculture, “I’ll try and dig out the paper that argues that a small founding population of warrior males of 5% or so together with an apartheid like social structure with Anglo males at the top displacing many Celtic males, then out breeding the rest via greater reproductive access to fertile women could have produced this 20-50% figure in just a few generations.”

Sounds interesting I will look forward to reading it. Thanks.

“Example 1: There are to many Humans Living in the UK. That is MY opinion.”

OK. Perfectly arguable opinion. The difficulty people have with it is that it rather begs the question “What are we supposed to Do about this? Which of us shouldn’t really be here?”

“Example 2: Because of the worldwide, decade on decade increase in the growth of the Human world Population, there will come a time when the Earth will not be able sustain the Human Population . That is the OPINION of an ever increasing group of people.”

Again, perfectly arguable. Again, what is one supposed to do about it? Supposing I listen to you and don’t have any more children, and a lot of people in Bangladesh and Nigeria don’t? How does that help?

Example 5: E=mc². That is a scientific FACT.

Only in a relativistic frame of reference though

Indeed Morgoth but I will take that relativistic Fact over Religious or Political Dogma any day, as I suspect, would you.

I’d be fascinated to know how the mod function works. I just threw in a couple of comments on a post of Anaximander’s, not saying fuck or posting links or mentioning Muslims or anything, and it’s been stuck for ages. Well, we’ll see….

Oops I am not in trouble am I Cipriano, I hope not because I do like your comments.

Aniximander makes some entirely irrelevant comments about genetics. I’m part Jesey-Breton stock, and therefore am diluting the mother race, no doubt. But you’ll excuse me for still being a patriotic Briton.

The key point is not your skin colour or genetic background (what a reactionary and dangerous idea – but, more than that, what a fundamentally freakishly outlandish idea). I’m damn glad we live in a country and an age where we don’t care about genes. In fact, I’d say that was one of the things that makes us British – a fundamental tolerance of others.

And this is what it comes down to. I don’t *entirely* agree with Marko’s pro-free movement idea. I think current immigration policy is fine, but any major liberalisation would cause further rifts in the social fabric. The key point is that we need to promote a civic patriotism that rests upon our participation in a common culture and a common set of values. Blunkett was right to impose compulsory English classes. We should look more carefully at the automatic admittance of foreign spouses (this has a very severe effect on the social stratification of northern towns as people from Pakistan are imported wholesale into a country whose language and culture they have no understanding of).

But, as a progressive, I do believe that immigration is not fundamentally wrong if managed appropriately and cultural assimilation promoted. And, certainly, our commitments to taking refugees are in my view quite inviolable.

I really do not believe that the UK is a soft touch. You remember the who-hah over vouchers rather than cash for asylum seekers (an unfair policy in my view, but not a soft-touch one). Mrs Ben – the government is really very tough on asylum seekers. There are lists of safe countries where the assumption is you should be returned home, imprisons most of them on arrival and (in 2007) only 23% of asylum applications were allowed.

Now, I don’t oppose any of these policies per se (apart from vouchers, which was rightly scrapped by David Blunkett), but to suggest that they are indicative of the UK being a soft-touch is merely the paranoid ranting fantasies of Daily Mail readers, the more than moderately right wing parts of the Tory Party and the BNP.

People like Rockall and Yarbles need to get over their paranoia, stop sounding like a bunch of racist fucks, and start dealing in facts. This will be very difficult for them, of course. As, uncharitable as it sounds, their contributions suggest that they are in fact racist fucks.

Cipriano “Again, perfectly arguable. Again, what is one supposed to do about it? Supposing I listen to you and don’t have any more children, and a lot of people in Bangladesh and Nigeria don’t? How does that help?”

Unfortunately I don’t have an answer. China tried the one child policy and it didn’t make any difference to the over all world increase in Human population.

I have 2 children, I, just like almost every other Human on planet Earth love my children intensely, it is, in my view, a genetic evolutionary adaptation to ensure the continuation of the species.

I would never, ever suggest that any Human on Earth should not have children because apart from being extremely Arrogant, it is, again according to my world view, impossible for Humans to stave off their genetic programing, maybe a relatively few individuals could be convinced to give up the joy of having children but to assume we can control Human population growth on a world wide scale is, as far as I am concerned, Impossible.

I don’t have any answers to offer, no magic cure all, but I am certain of this, Religion and Politics don’t have any answers either. Thats why my days are dark at the moment, I apologise if my comments are depressing but I have to let of steam somewhere and HPs seems to be a place where I can do that.

“People like Rockall and Yarbles need to get over their paranoia, stop sounding like a bunch of racist fucks, and start dealing in facts.”

Ben, a triumph. You managed to confirm to of my observations in on single comment.

“That Facts Only Matter In Science, in Politics and Religion they are Ignored.”

“Example 3: Example 2 is a neo-con plot, the planet Earth can sustain Human population growth indefinitely and anyone who says it cannot must be a Fascist. That is the OPINION of most of the ‘Left’.”

Thanks Ben.

Anaximander, my dear fellow.

Just because you crow loudly that something supports your previously expressed prejudices does not make it so. Neither you nor your fellow reactionaries have dealt in anything other than bluster, innuendo and received wisdom. You state baldly that we are living in some Malthusian nightmare. There is no evidence for this being on the agenda. Predictions suggest that population will stabilise later this century and then begin to fall.

As soon as this fear-fannign nonsense is called out and context offered, this is then an example of lefties sticking their head in the sand and not dealing in facts? When it is, in fact, *precisely the opposite*?

Not only are you deeply objectionable, but you are also tragically pathetic.

Example 6: When all else fails, insult the opposition. That is the default position of the Left and Ben.

Goodbye my Dear Fellow.

Interesting debate – just who is Rocakall666 – and would he have argued against accepting refugees in WWII?

Presently an urgent case is pending, an Iranian, who is sought by the authorities there, is set to be flown back on Tuesday. He is not faking anything, he did not try to overthrow the gov and install sharia law, he is just a young convert trying to live in peace. Hopefully he will. Check for details at http://www.freedomforasylumseekers.blogspot.com

Aniximander makes some entirely irrelevant comments about genetics.

Not at all. All the talk of genetics springs from Paul Fauvet’s feeble attempted smearing of poor Gary: Gary used the term indigenous; Paul employed the tried and tested (to destruction) of questioning the reality of an indigenous British population and I intervened. Anaximander was merely doing the most sensible thing by posting further corroborating the facts from a comment he’d already posted.

To me, no doubt Gary and Anaximander too (and others), it makes not one jot of difference about my origins. Yes, it’s an interesting topic, but the whole reason for highlighting the current extent of our knowledge in this domain was to rebut Paul’s assertion that using the words indigenous and British in the same context was oxymoronic. Further, I’m quite sure that Gary wasn’t employing the term indigenous to argue for some sort of uberrace or even that he invited a scientific discussion of British origins. No doubt, he assumed, as most people do, when referring to the indigenous people of the British Isles, others would understand him perfectly…as I did. Only the perpetually disingenuous gauleiters of ideological multiculturalism take issue with such terms, because it damages their hegemonic cultural revolution.

I’m part Jesey-Breton stock, and therefore am diluting the mother race, no doubt. But you’ll excuse me for still being a patriotic Briton.

Yet again, you insist on employing the language of eugenics. The only people who’ve mentioned terms like ‘pure’, ‘race’ and ‘homogeneous’ are those commenters who have cried ‘racism’ at every turn and described others as ‘inhumane’. Nobody on this thread advocating a properly managed asylum and immigration system has had recourse to such terms; chiefly, because racialism and eugenics are not the branches of knowledge or belief systems that motivate their concern.

The key point is not your skin colour or genetic background (what a reactionary and dangerous idea – but, more than that, what a fundamentally freakishly outlandish idea).

Again, I contend that it is YOU and your ideological bedfellows that have been making allusions to race and now, skin colour…nobody else. Please feel free to examine the thread for other co-occurences of the term ’skin colour’. You’ll be disappointed.

I’m damn glad we live in a country and an age where we don’t care about genes. In fact, I’d say that was one of the things that makes us British – a fundamental tolerance of others.

Tolerance is one thing. However, there must be a sense of what tolerance is; its remit and from whence it springs. There must be an underlying notion as to why it’s virtuous to be tolerant; why Britons have been synonymous with tolerance for the best part of a century (though I’d argue it no longer applies). An understanding of tolerance presumes a knowledge of the Christian (in the British context) ethics that have fundamentally inspired this tolerance.

I contend that is New Labour and the Conservatives; our modern political class in toto, that has destroyed our tradition of tolerance through its recourse to idealism and the dstruction of our historic liberties. Moreover, tolerance is viewed as a weakness and is often used as an ideological weapon by those who, despite being fully cognisant of what it entails, employ it to cow dissent; insisting on supplicatory adherents to the new-age religion of non-judgementalism.

Blunkett was right to impose compulsory English classes.

You see, I disagree there. This smacks of authoritarianism of the highest magnitude. Why should people be dictated to by the nanny state as to which language they speak? Many Britons, in my experience, particularly in the Near and Middle East, fail to even pick up the most rudimentary knowledge of a language despite residing abroad for significant periods of time.

Far better, would be to insist, something that clearly wasn’t happening with regards Chinese students many moons ago when I was at uni., that all immigrants have a minimum level of English before coming to the UK. There are literally millions of ways to learn and acquire a good standard of English these days without having to step foot inside an Anglophonic country. I, personally, have encountered thousands of Middle Easterners with a good standard; often an excellent command of my mother tongue who have not needed to emigrate to the UK or elsewhere before learning the language.

the paranoid ranting fantasies of Daily Mail readers, the more than moderately right wing parts of the Tory Party and the BNP.

‘He’s a Daily Mail reader!’: the most withering slur that a sneering and intolerant authoritarian has recourse to.

UK citizens don’t need to read the Dail Mail to see what’s going on in front of their noses.

People like Rockall and Yarbles need to get over their paranoia,

And where, pray tell, might I have exhibited symptoms of paranoia?

stop sounding like a bunch of racist fucks, and start dealing in facts.

More bad language and libel. It’s a bit rich coming from you to be asked to start ‘dealing in facts’ given that your own comments are conspicuous by the absence of anything approaching the objective truth.

This will be very difficult for them, of course. As, uncharitable as it sounds, their contributions suggest that they are in fact racist fucks.

No doubt, you’ve heard the old adage: ‘Empty vessels make the most noise’.

Predictions suggest that population will stabilise later this century and then begin to fall.

I’d like to *see* some of these predictions…could you point me in the direction of your sources, please? I’d be most grateful!

Well said Yarbles.

Mrs Ben @ 6 June 2009, 12:00 pm

“Our current controls are totally inadequate to sift the genuine asylum seekers from the fake ones. How would you distinguish?”

The Homeless Persons Units of many Councils are staffed with people who a very experienced and skilled in doing just that in the case of Homeless applicants. There are significant parallels between asylum and homelessness as Official casework tasks.

The long-term problem used to be that the Home Office was so rubbish at dealing with cases that decisons were not made until year’s later, by which time some applicants had British-born children. That’s why it has been made difficult for visitors to the UK to get married here.

Eventually the fecundity of even the most fecund of the Third World immigrants we already have [I am not counting the dozen or so arriving everyt day concealed in cross-Channel trucks or the hundreds enrolleed in non-existant colleges in Manchester] will erode.

By that time we’ll have 65 or 70 or 75 million people squeezed in here, the country will look like Southall Market, hostile and rival groups will hate each other in a low-trust society [read Robert Putnam] and people like the vile Vaz and Shahid Malik the Martyr King will be recurrently relected by their dependable ethic votebanks.

My grandson really has something to look forward to doesn’t he?

Ben

Being Jersey-Breton still makes you genetically at home lol.

Bretons are Cornish who learned to swim and the Anglo Norman channel islands are well Norman and so thus much of our Aristocracy unlike royalty of cours:)

I find genetics essential because it actually desconstructs almost any attempt at ethno-linguistic or racial purity.

Palestinians are pretty similar to many israelis gentically and Greeks and Turks are often indistinguishable.

An african american may discover they are mostly German etc etc.

Compulsory genetic testing for all by 2020 ,that will bring all the racist nationalists down and leave us with no choice but a civic and political nationalism.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

The table on p13 is particularly useful, but should be read with accompanying comments on the previous pages. Suffice to say, actually, changed assumptions need to be made about human birth rates in order for there not to be a substantial decline in the long term. This is only one prediction. Plenty of people work in this area and virtually none suggest exponential growth. Not least because the growth rate in human population has been declining since the 1960s.

I had thought this sort of knowledge was fairly widespread, but clearly the ultra right have been sticking their head in the sand, or – more likely – choosing to deliberately ignore inconvenient facts so they can promote their ugly politics based on fear.

“Racialist”, yarbles? That word is exactly like the word “Moslem”, and has similar loaded connotations. You know what I’m saying, you prick. It is *disgusting* that you and your ilk are allowed to post here.

I have consistently sought to bring context to this ugly discussion, and your ilk have offered nothing more than “home spun wisdom”. And yet you have the gall to suggest the opposite.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Well, metta, what can I say? I always knew I had good breeding. It shows. Certainly better than the rather infra dig racist oiks displaying their wares ici, n’est pas? They are so terribly non-U, don’t you think?

Can we get something straight before accusing people of the dreadful crime of being that unspeakable person, a ‘racist’?

A person loves his or her children because they are his or hers. Right?

Of course, other people’s children may be smarter, better-looking or even better behaved but I love my children because they are mine. I prefer their company to the company of your children, however adorable YOUR children might be.

And I certainly don’t want YOUR children crowding into MY children’s playroom without being specifically invited. Is that clear enough?

Is that enough to win me an Enoch Powell award, to be presented in public by Shahid Malik, the Martyr King, or perhaps by the Aden-born Keith Vaz?

Do please make an effort to read Robert Putnam on the malign effect multiculturalism has had on community cohesion and trust. In one case study after another Putnam found that trust and community cohesion diminished markedly in accordance with how diverse a society is.

In a society as diverse as Southall Market or Brixton Magistrates’ Court, nobody with any sense trusts anyone outside his or her immediate clan or – perhaps – his or her ethno-cultural group.

The U.K. Home Office confirmed this in a study a few years ago and them promptly suppressed it. ["A good day to bury bad news."]

Equally, detailed and exhaustive studies that establish very clearly that mass low-skill immigration brings no real benefit to ordinary people in British society have been suppressed by the political class. Sure, cheap domestic labour and amusing restaurants are lovely for the posh and rich 5% of our society but for MOST ordinary Brits overcrowded and ethnically-mixed schools are a parents’ nightmare and then we can add the extra pressure on social housing [70% of Somalis in Britain live in social housing and well over 50% of Somalis are living on public dole of one form or another] and the health service and public transport and …

As for creating jobs, Third World immigrants certainly create SOME jobs. Since Muslims of all origins, Nigerians and Jamaicans occupy far more prison beds than their proportional entitlement, we can say that these people’s immigration has created jobs for prison and police and probation officers, psychiatric social workers and a whole host of other people whose labour benefits me not at all but who are paid for by the taxpayer.

The political class hates and despises the ordinary British people.

Melvyn. I dont who Rockall666 is but this is what his moniker represents;
Rockall is a small, uninhabited, rocky islet in the north Atlantic Ocean. It gives its name to one of the sea areas named in the Shipping Forecast, provided by the British Meteorological Office. It could be, in James Fisher’s words, “the most isolated small rock in the oceans of the world”.[1]
The ownership of Rockall is disputed as are the exploration and fishing rights on the Rockall Bank. A meeting between the countries involved (the United Kingdom, Denmark (for the Faroe Islands), Ireland and Iceland), is scheduled for May 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall

666 is the number of the Beast of Revelations and Hollywood spooky movies.

Spooky huh!

I have a strong suspician that he is the former bete noir of this site WJ Philips returned.

“A meeting between the countries involved (the United Kingdom, Denmark (for the Faroe Islands), Ireland and Iceland), is scheduled for May 2009.”

Well, in that case, it’s running a bit late.

But actually no further meetings are necessary! In 1972 Rockall was formally claimed for Mer Majesty the Queen, Gawd bless ‘er, by Act of Parliament:

“The Island of Rockall Act 1972 (1972 c. 2) is a UK Act of Parliament formally annexing Rockall in its entirety to protect it from Irish and Icelandic claims. The Act asserts that the Island of Rockall, was part of the Scottish county of Inverness-shire.

The long title of the Act is “An Act to make provision for the incorporation of that part of Her Majesty’s Dominions known as the Island of Rockall into that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith”.

The entire Act consists of a single effective section, which reads, “As from the date of the passing of this Act, the Island of Rockall (of which possession was formally taken in the name of Her Majesty on 18th September 1955 in pursuance of a Royal Warrant dated 14th September 1955 addressed to the Captain of Her Majesty’s Ship Vidal) shall be incorporated into that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland and shall form part of the District of Harris in the County of Inverness, and the law of Scotland shall apply accordingly.” It was amended by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to transfer administrative control to the Western Isles Council when Inverness-shire was abolished.”

Cipriano

You are not up to date posession of Rocckall matters not a jot to claims over the sea bed.

Law of the Sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states,

“Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”

Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland all acceded to the convention.

The United Kingdom acceded to the convention on 25 July 1997.

The United Kingdom and Ireland have agreed to a delineation which ignores Rockall’s existence and have granted exploration rights.

[ibid]

I present Exhibit A, m’lud

Predictions suggest that population will stabilise later this century and then begin to fall.

According to the graph on p.13 of the .pdf linked to, only 1 of the 3 scenarios envisages population decline. Indeed, one of the scenarios forecasts the global population to reach 36 billion by 2300. The principle ‘medium’ scenario also forecasts a rising global population.

The ‘evidence’ you provided for your assertion of ‘global population decline’ is less than conclusive; indeed, on balance it contradicts your assertion. Nonetheless, I appreciate the gesture.

Could you provide further evidence for your additional claim that:

Plenty of people work in this area and virtually none suggest exponential growth. Not least because the growth rate in human population has been declining since the 1960s.

_ _ _ _ _

I had thought this sort of knowledge was fairly widespread, but clearly the ultra right have been sticking their head in the sand, or – more likely – choosing to deliberately ignore inconvenient facts so they can promote their ugly politics based on fear.

Who are the ‘ultra right’, Ben? Is this your coinage?

Incidentally, in spite of the flawed evidence you produce (so flawed that it contradicts your original assertion), the document says almost nothing about proposed migration trends, and yet this is what most likely concerns those commenters advocating a more robust asylum and immigration system.

You seem to be ignoring ‘inconvenient facts’ by making claims that are either not proven or, on balance, less likely to come true given the alternative scenarios.

“Racialist”, yarbles? That word is exactly like the word “Moslem”, and has similar loaded connotations.

No, it doesn’t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialism

The word ‘racialism’ has obtained amongst those of a certain generation and social scientists, to say nothing of those who, falling outside of these two categories, have appropriated the term in much the same way as any other abstract lexical item.

And you won’t find me using the spelling ‘Moslem’, which, whether it has negative connotations or not, is a totally separate matter; far-removed from the substantive discussion at hand.

You know what I’m saying, you prick. It is *disgusting* that you and your ilk are allowed to post here.

And just who *are* my ‘ilk’? The Tourette’s seems to be kicking in again: did you follow my prescription for ’simmering down’?

I have consistently sought to bring context to this ugly discussion,

Surely you jest? ‘Context’? All you seem to have brought to the ‘discussion’ (please let me know when it begins and I’ll be happy to add my 3s 6d) is foul language and uncorroborated hearsay. Even your latest attempt at ‘evidence’ has been exposed as hollow; worthy of the sort of unsubstantiated allegations frequently thrown by people in glass houses.

and your ilk have offered nothing more than “home spun wisdom”.

I appreciate that having a civilised discussion without descending into a torrent of obscenities might be difficult for you, but might I be so bold as to suggest that you give it a go?

For the record, there’s nothing wrong with ‘homespun wisdom’, as you call it. It’s only when commenters or posters make unverifiable assertions and insult other commenters that ‘facts’ somehow morph into what you pejoratively describe as ‘homespun wisdom’.

And yet you have the gall to suggest the opposite.

Yes. T’is rather galling, is it not?

post at 2:05 is held in moderation that’s just silly.

Is it too much to ask for asylum policy to have something of the spirit of Jesus’ remark “that what you did to the least among you, you did to me”?

Oh, and do I need to repeat Jesus’ story answering the question: “Who is my neighbor?”
That was the one concerning a Samartian.