The house is full!

[Gladiator]

:mad: Immigration firestorm could scorch Tony Blair

Katherine Baldwin, Reuters, April 19, 2005

"The country's full up," said Sushila Nath as she shopped for saris in one of the most ethnically diverse areas of Britain's second-largest city.

"We've got no proper hospitals. Everything is very crowded. There are too many people coming here," added the 60-year-old Nath who left India to settle in Birmingham 37 years ago.

In some parts of the United Kingdom, even the immigrants are crying out for a stop to immigration.

Fears that Britain's vital public services are being overwhelmed by new arrivals have pushed the issue up the political agenda as Tony Blair vies for a third term on May 5.

While the Prime Minister is expected to win, polls show that immigration and asylum are his Labour party's weakest link and the opposition Conservatives' strongest card.

This month's conviction of an Algerian failed asylum seeker of an al Qaeda poison plot has given ammunition to the Conservatives, who accuse Mr Blair of running a chaotic system and playing fast and loose with the nation's security.

Officially, Labour says it does not know how many people are living illegally in Britain although one leaked government-commissioned report estimated up to half a million.

Labour's Roger Godsiff, running for re-election to Parliament for the Birmingham area of Sparkbrook and Small Heath - where immigrants account for about 80 per cent of the population - is candid about the extent of illegal immigration.

"I have officially about 73,000 electors in my constituency but you could easily add another 10,000 who are 'non-people'. Provided they stay out of the hair of officialdom, they can live here for the rest of their lives," he told Reuters.

Sari stores, Middle Eastern jewellers and Islamic bookshops line the commercial streets of a constituency that Mr Godsiff calls a "patchwork quilt". But many residents complain about a tide of Somalian asylum seekers who they say are living off benefits.

"I'm between jobs," said 28-year-old Ahmed Abdi, using a common euphemism for unemployment as he mingled with fellow Somalians at a coffee shop down the road.

Voters rank asylum and immigration first or second only to health in importance and most want tighter controls, polls show.

Britain's 60 million population is projected to grow by 6.1 million by 2031, of which 84 per cent will be due to the assumed level of immigration, says independent watchdog Migration Watch UK.

Conservative leader Michael Howard - himself the son of immigrants - pledges annual quotas on immigrants and asylum seekers, more border police and an offshore centre to process asylum claims.

Mr Blair opposes quotas, saying immigrants are needed to fill jobs Britons will not do.

But while Labour accuses the Conservatives of playing the race card, it has unveiled its own immigration curbs that some critics say are only a fraction less reactionary. Like the Conservatives, Labour plans to introduce an Australian-style points system, favouring skilled workers over willing labourers while genuine refugees may be sent home after five years if their home country is deemed safe.

Immigration inflames passions in this densely populated island nation that has a chequered colonial past and a long history of welcoming migrants.

In one of the most infamous speeches of the last century, Conservative politician Enoch Powell sparked outrage in 1968 when he forecast rivers of blood from inter-ethnic strife.

A rise in support for far-right groups like the British National Party (BNP) and fears of immigrant inflows from an enlarged European Union has turned the issue into a mainstream concern.

According to official figures, Britain took more asylum seekers than any other European country in the 2000-2004 period but applications fell by 33 per cent from 2003 to 2004.

Voters, however, are sceptical about Labour's figures following a slump in public trust in Mr Blair since the Iraq war.

In the latest Mori poll, 65 per cent disagreed that Mr Blair was open and honest about the scale of immigration to Britain.

[etoile noir]

"In some parts of the United Kingdom, even the immigrants are crying out for a stop to immigration"

oh the irony! next we'll see the CRE asking for repatriation of immigrants back to where they came from, and fighting for equality for the brits :rolleyes:

[argo]

http://www.sterlingtimes.org/powell_speech.doc

"Like the Roman, I see the River Tiber foaming with much blood"


The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen.

Click on the link at the top for the complete transcript.


This superb speech foretelling the fate of the UK was given by Enoch Powell in 1968. He has been proven right many times over and yet there are those in our midst who are working relentlessly for the same to happen to us.

[Marco Polo]

i expect minorities in Britain to clash in the future. None of them really like each other anyway, just look at hindu's and muslims.

[Florian Geyer]

i expect minorities in Britain to clash in the future. None of them really like each other anyway, just look at hindu's and muslims.

You're right. But if whitey is involved then it's racist aggression.Neo nazis,skinheads,thugs bent on racial agitation.When oh when is whitey going to wake up:mad:

[Gladiator]

Like the woman who complained that she can't buy a bloody sari! Well lady go back to wherever you came from and then wear your bloody sari as much as you want. Somalis wear burqas:eek:

[Neverwinter]

Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=MDBTB0JBXUTDJQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/07/02/do0202.xml&posted=true&_requestid=62164)
Never have we seen immigration on this scale: we just can't cope
By Robert Rowthorn
02/07/2006

'We recognise the positive contributions immigration makes to the country and the economy," the Prime Minister's official spokesman said last week. "If we don't have migration, we don't have the growth from the economy that we all benefit from."

He was responding to some concerns about the rate of immigration raised by Frank Field, the Labour MP for Birkenhead - but Downing Street's claim that "if we don't have immigration, we won't have economic growth" has been stated over and over again since Labour took office in 1997.

If you repeat something often enough, you can perhaps make people believe it. What you cannot do is turn it from being false into being true. And the Government's claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration.
advertisement

There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.

Immigration can't solve the pensions crisis, nor solve the problem of an ageing population, as its advocates so often claim. It can, at most, delay the day of reckoning, because, of course, immigrants themselves grow old, and they need pensions.

The injection of large numbers of unskilled workers into the economy does not benefit the bulk of the population to any great extent. It benefits the nanny-and housecleaner-using classes; it benefits employers who want to pay low wages; but it does not benefit indigenous, unskilled Britons, who have to compete with immigrants willing to work hard for very low wages in unpleasant working conditions.

For low-skilled Britons, the result is that there are only two options: very low pay or unemployment. The economy becomes dependent on a constant influx of immigrants who are willing to accept low pay and poor working conditions. That is what Labour ministers mean when they insist that "public services would collapse without immigrants".

It is bizarre that the Labour Party, which still continues to insist that it is the party of the poor and vulnerable, should endorse a policy the purpose of which is the creation of what Marx called "a reserve army of labour": a pool of workers whose presence ensures that rates of pay for cleaners and ancillary staff in the NHS can be kept as low as possible.

Highly skilled immigrants - doctors, scientists, lawyers, accountants, even professional sportsmen - can provide economic benefits to the whole of society. Their skills can generate wealth, and they pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits from the state. But most immigrants who arrive in Britain from outside the EU, and who hope to settle permanently here, are not highly skilled. Some have no skills at all. Many female immigrants do not want to work in paid employment, or are actively discouraged from seeking it by their spouses and families.

Unskilled migrants and their families often are net consumers of taxes: their children are educated in state schools, they are looked after when they have medical problems by the NHS, and they are eligible for state benefits if they are unable to find work. The new arrivals place a significant strain on the housing stock and delivery of public services in the neighbourhoods where new immigrants live: schools, hospitals and GP surgeries become more crowded, and state-subsidised housing gets more difficult to obtain.

The places where most immigrants can afford to live are usually already poor: they are forced to congregate in those areas where the native population is already disadvantaged. These are not, of course, the areas in which Government ministers and the nanny-and cleaner-employing classes choose to buy their homes. That may explain why they don't seem to care about what happens to them.

It is important to dispense with some additional myths surrounding immigration. First: asylum-seekers are not the major cause of migration into the UK. Refugees and others granted special leave to remain under the asylum rules account for only 10 per cent of immigration to Britain. Most permanent immigration consists of people who are economic migrants together with their dependants.

They are here because they believe they have a better chance of a decent life in Britain than in their native country. They aren't people fleeing persecution. Many of them have been given work permits by the Government.

Second: while Britain has always had immigration, the recent influx is totally without precedent in modern times. Relative to population, the scale of immigration is now much greater than during any period since the Anglo-Saxon and Danish invasions over a thousand years ago.

In 2004, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 223,000 more people migrated into the UK than left it. Before Labour came to power, the number of people leaving Britain roughly balanced the number arriving, so the net contribution of immigration to population growth was modest. The total population of Britain was expected to remain roughly constant.

At the present rate of 223,000 additional immigrants every year, though, and adding the children that they will produce, the population of Britain will grow by more than 12 million to reach 73.2 million by 2046. There is no parallel for such a huge influx over a mere 40 years in our recorded history.

Most of the immigrants will settle in London and the South-East, because that is where the jobs are. There is already a chronic housing shortage in that part of England, a large portion of which is due to immigration.

It is difficult to see how many millions of extra people can be housed in the South-East without concreting over what few green field areas are left. Exacerbating the housing shortage and increasing the amount and density of built-on land, however, is only one of a series of transformations that will be triggered by the constant arrival of immigrants. They will inevitably completely change the culture and complexion of many cities.

I am not suggesting that all those changes will be bad, because I am sure that not all of them will be. While the immigration lobby tries to smear anyone who questions the benefits of large-scale immigration as "racist", the real issue is not whether you like or dislike the social changes that the colossal influx of immigrants will bring.

It is rather that the Government has embarked on a policy that will totally change the nature of many of the communities in which we live without consulting any of us.

"We have have always been completely open about our case for migration," said Downing Street last week. That is simply not true. Labour has never formally announced that it is committed to increasing immigration indefinitely: the closest any minister came to it was David Blunkett, who, as Home Secretary, announced that he thought there was "no natural limit" to the number of immigrants Britain could absorb.

But that's about it. There was nothing about increasing immigration in Labour's manifesto of 1997, or of 2001, or of 2005.

The only justification the Government has ever given for increasing immigration is the economic benefits it alleges immigration has for the existing population. But those benefits are a mirage, and if they are the only justification the Government has, it is following a policy which is based on a fundamental error.

We desperately need an honest debate on the issue. But if the Government's record is anything to go by, it will do everything it can to prevent one.

[IMPERIUM]

An old banking principle:
Bad money drives out the good.
That is why immigration is bad.

An effective video about the immigration problem:
immigration entails the spending of our resources on immigrants.
Indeed, immigration is no benefit at all - it is entirely negative.

http://www.vivamalta.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=31

Sealed borders protecting the Europid Race.
A repatriation programme.
An Imperium Europa for Europids only.

Imperium
0701