Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Immigration waffle

Nice to see The Sun taking a fair and balanced approach to the subject of immigration today. Let's go through it point by point shall we?

"IMMIGRATION does not generate wealth for the UK — earning just FOUR PENCE a week for each Briton, a report claims today. But foreigners working here send home some £70MILLION a week, reveal the new findings." [their emphasis]

Baddies?Nice little statistical trick here don't you think? Four pence is a lot less than £70 million isn't it? No. If the figures are correct £70 million a week sent home is less than two pence each. We're given the impression they contribute little and send home vast sums (tossers, it's not like British companies make vast sums out of the rest of the world which they then "send home"). But in fact what they're doing is trying to tell us four is less than two.

They then describe this four pence in this manner "the economic benefits are effectively NOTHING" (having told us a lesser sum is too much). Actually four pence for everyone is quite a lot, and if that suddenly disappeared the economy would be fucked. Anyway...

They go on to say "the influx puts an extra burden on public services, jobs, wages and community harmony". The "influx" (is that more or less than a swarm?) does not put an extra burden on public services seeing as many of the public services would collapse without immigration. The NHS in particular 100% relies on medical and auxiliary staff from overseas. Many of the bus drivers on the number three route that I take are Polish. It looks to me like they are sustaining public services in this town rather than burdening them.

An extra burden on jobs? But aren't immigrants doing all the jobs UK citizens refuse to do? Or aren't qualified to do, like plumbers? It seems to me the majority of these posts would go unfilled if there wasn't someone shipped in, full of protestant work ethic and concerned for their family.

An extra burden on wages? I'm afraid that immigrants are being paid less than "home grown" labour, if anything they have the effect of undercutting wages and reducing the wage bill because they are more difficult to unionise particularly in a historical period when trade union membership is low and strike action relatively uncommon.

A burden on community harmony? Apart from the fact that the phrase is meaningless I'm willing to bet pounds to pennies that immigrants commit less crimes per head, have less ASBOs and are less of a nuisance than the British. The Sun is attempting to whip up divisions in the community with this very article, all the immigrants I come across do no such thing.

The Sun does have a bit of a 'history' on this issueThen the Sun reveals this is a report by "think-tank MigrationWatch". Hmmm, yes, this is the Tory inspired think tank deliberately set up to attack immigrants and pressure the government to slaughter asylum seekers. Are they *really* capable of producing an unbiased report? Who knows, it's yet to happen.

The Chairman says “But taken in total, the economic benefit [of immigration] is at best marginal. The main beneficiaries are the immigrants themselves, who send home about £10 million a day.” A marginal benefit is better than no benefit and he says that immigrants benefit from immigration like it's a bad thing. Perhaps he was frightened by one as a child.

They go on to quote the government statistics on the economic benefits, in pounds, shillings and pence (well, not shillings) of immigration then say "But this is cancelled out when the effect of population growth is added." How? Where is this enormous population growth that's going around cancelling out billions of pounds all over the shop? Why wasn't I informed of this?

"The findings come as Britain braces itself for a flood of workers from Bulgaria and Romania." They'll be swamping us next. "When the EU expanded in 2004 British workers lost their jobs" ... and the increase in the unemployment figures has been... negligible - but let's not forget they may be taking our women too. Putting their clammy Eastern European hands all over them, smelling of garlic and Brut no doubt.

They conclude their article by saying “There is the need to balance the very small economic gain with the very heavy social costs.” But as I think I've mentioned immigrants benefit public services, do jobs the British wont do (particularly in rural areas) and the figures have been deliberately distorted to make them look worse than they are.

All in all... arghhhhhhhhh.

28 comments:

Duncan Money said...

I can only echo 'arghhhhhhhhh'!

Lies about asylum seekers need to be exposed for what they are, lies, and you've done a great job of countering the bile of 'The Scum'.

If there's one thing I wish for the New Year it's that the editorial staff at that miserable excuse for a newspaper to wake up to find themselves living in abject poverty in Zimbabwe before being beaten by police for objecting to having their houses pulled down.

Phew it was good to get that out of me.

Peter said...

£70 million a week would in fact cancel out 4p per person - £70 million equals more than a pound per person.

But I think that migration watch includes the 70 million as a cost before coming to the 4p net gain (given their stance, it would be surprising if they did not).

4p per person per week would be about £125 million for a year. A small sum in the grand scheme of things - but still a benefit. Migration Watch has made a big blunder here - they've produced a report showing that immigration is at least marginally beneficial to both Britain and immigrants.

The Sentinel said...

This is one of those debates where emotionally charged, strongly ingrained opinions take precedence over facts and common-sense. To dissent from the (current) state enforced version of the 'multi-cultural paradise' we live in is to invite screaming abuse and threats.

But I am too long in the tooth to care.

The truth is that unchecked immigration has brought no discernible benefit to this or another country, but it has brought very tangible unwanted side effects. For years the professional liars that inhabit the corridors of power told us that immigration brought us enormous economic benefits while the truth has (inevitably) now emerged that they actually cost us money. And lots of it.

The statement that there are jobs that 'whites' will not do is utter rubbish (and the same one used in the US to allow in millions of Mexicans.) After all, countries like Iceland that are still virtually homogenous get everything done and to a standard that puts us to shame. If there are any jobs that Britons avoid it is because the wage associated with them is not enough to live on. However, you have hit the nail on the head when you say that immigrants have the effect of dragging down wages. Our pension fund has a £440m blackhole thanks to Labour allowing elderly immigrants to take from a fund that they had not contributed to. Many under 30's will be lucky if they even see a pension. It is theft and fraud.

The new wave of immigrants place an enormous burden of all of our public resources especially the NHS; they have reintroduced TB into this country (and many other countries too) after we had eradicated it over 20 years ago and bring many, many cases of HIV as well as other more exotic diseases. To say that the NHS would collapse without immigrants is bizarre because if we didn't have the massive amounts of additional people needing the NHS we would not need the massive amount of additional people staffing the NHS.

Why do you think that our green and pleasant land suffers from 'drought' and threats of water rationing? Apart from mismanagement it is because there is way more demand then facilities.

As for crime and immigration there is masses and masses of evidence that extreme crime rates and (particularly African) immigration are directly linked. As for "I'm willing to bet pounds to pennies that immigrants commit less crimes per head" you lose your pounds easily. There are five times more African youngsters in prison in the UK then their white counterparts. Black community leaders themselves are frantic about the level of violence and crime in places like Brixton and Hackney. We have had the very sad but very inevitable spectacle of four British born Asian muslims blowing themselves up on public transport during rush hour out of pure hatred for the people of this country.

France is engaged in what its own police admit is a civil war with its city dwelling immigrants; Belgium has similar problems along with other European country, to varying degrees, that has allowed this suicidal open door policy to be implemented.

Australia is experiencing the first tangible benefits of its very recent African immigration with criminal gangs forming and acting with a level of organised violence unseen in Australia before (even by the Lebanese and Vietnamese gangs already there.) In Perth and Melbourne, the self styled 'African kings' are battling with the aborigine's, daily, in a surreal struggle for tribal supremacy.

And so on, etc. , etc.

But just why do these immigrants feel it necessary to come here (or Australia, Canada, Australia, etc.) in the first place? Why do they not emigrate to Mexico, or India or Chad instead? What is it about the 'western' countries that is so attractive? And why are these people not able to replicate whatever that attraction is in their own homelands?

Lets face it. the people from the countries that come here in droves are as diverse as Poland and Pakistan, Albania and Algeria, Lithuanian and Liberia, so quite apart from the 'environmental and colonial' excuse having been long since discredited, what is the real issue here?

Why are we not smuggling ourselves in the backs of lorries into their countries?

(And Duncan Money: "If there's one thing I wish for the New Year it's that the editorial staff at that miserable excuse for a newspaper to wake up to find themselves living in abject poverty in Zimbabwe before being beaten by police for objecting to having their houses pulled down" describes the position of the white farmers there and in South Africa quite well. If you leave out the rapes and murders too, that is.

And Zimbabwe, once known as the bread basket of Africa is now unable to feed even itself. Great progress. Real freedom.)

studentmedic said...

Can I be less impressed?

Duncan Money said...

The sentinel,

You really do know nothing at all about Zimbabwe.

When exactly was Zimbabwe called the 'bread basket' of Africa?

You see, unlike you, I know a bit about Zimbabwe since my Dad was born and grew up there.

I'm not saying white farmers haven't suffered horrific abuses at the hands of the Zimbabwean government but the majority and the worst of the violence is directed at the black majority.

Your depiction of Zimbabwe ruled by the white minority, or Rhodesia as it was then known, is pure racist fantasy. The white minority ruled through co-ercion and violence, exactly as Mugabe does today.

I notice how you haven't actually disproved any of the points in Jimjay's post.

The Sentinel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Sentinel said...

How do you know that I know nothing about Zimbabwe, or that I wasn't born there or that my father wasn't born there? You don't do you.

If you just google "bread basket of Africa" you will find thousands of references to Zimbabwe and its former status as such.

Clearly if you do not know this much about Zimbabwe, I would suggest that you do not know very much about it all.

Your statement "Your depiction of Zimbabwe ruled by the white minority, or Rhodesia as it was then known, is pure racist fantasy. The white minority ruled through co-ercion and violence, exactly as Mugabe does today" doesn't actually mean anything. Rhodesia was not a fantasy but a historical reality and what point are you trying to make by saying that it is now ruled by coercion and violence?

But I suppose it gave you the chance to stick in that hysterical neo-witch label 'racist.'

And actually, I have disproved much of JimJays's post, including crime and the NHS and jobs that Britons won't do.

If you were able to answer why immigrants come here and to other 'western' nations in order to find a better life and why they are not able to produce it for themselves it would be more productive.

Jim Jay said...

Fffffff... I go away for a few hours to do a bit of DIY and all hell breaks loose.

It may not look like it but I'm trying to shorten my responses in the comments section so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't respond to everything.

S "immigration has brought no discernible benefit to this or another country" Seeing as almost all of us are descended from immigrants I think this is a weird point of view.

S "that there are jobs that 'whites' will not do is utter rubbish"

Please don't put whites in inverted commas because it makes it look like you were quoting someone, no one bar you has used this term.

It is an economic fact that there are lots of jobs that are left unfilled because UK citizens don't want them. Because they are shit, poorly paid crapola jobs that no one would take unless they had to.

"an enormous burden of all of our public resources especially the NHS" This is just wrong.

The NHS would collapse WITHOUT immigration and speaking as a health worker and having been heavily involved in trade union issues in hospitals, NHS trusts, etc, there will be absolutely nothing you can say to disuade me of that because my personal experience counts for a sight more than some rehashed dogma from the 70's.

"And actually, I have disproved much of JimJays's post, including crime and the NHS and jobs that Britons won't do"

You haven't disproved any of it - you just disagreed with it - hardly the same thing. You've said nothing of substance on crime, just made an unfounded assertion on the NHS, and willfully ignored economic reality on jobs.

Sorry if that's harsh, but really.

Let's get more immigrants in and dilute some of this residual, backward, little englander mentality.

The Sentinel said...

No worries Jim Jay, your response is not harsh at all. Just erroneous.

Not all Britons are immigrants. Some are, of sorts. Primarily those of Anglo-Saxon and Viking ancestry and those ancestors didn't emigrate here in the traditional sense of the word. Additionally, they brought many benefits with them and were virtually indistinguishable from all of the groups already resident and to arrive after them. They made this island into what we now know as Britain, and into the country that tops the list for 'asylum' seekers and immigrants.

I put 'whites' in inverted commas because as I have stated the 'jobs we won't do' argument is also used in the US and as they are not UK citizens it was just a convenient shorthand. But also as I said, the Icelandic's do virtually all of their own (apparently unwanted) jobs but they get decent pay for them (so far, because the employers have to pay decent wages to get them done rather then import and employ cheap labour) so it really is false to suggest that there are any jobs beneath a countries citizens.

It makes no difference if you are health worker or not because if we didn't have the massive amounts of additional people needing the NHS we would not need the massive amount of additional people staffing the NHS. Immigrants included. That is obvious; that is logic. Also, we have a lot of home trained doctors and nurses who cannot get work in the NHS because of the immigrants already filling the posts and who then end up taking their skills, that we have paid for, overseas.

As for crime, you said "I'm willing to bet pounds to pennies that immigrants commit less crimes per head" and you were wrong. There are five times more people of African and therefore immigrant extraction in prison then their indigenous counterparts. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/black_crime.shtml )

The fact is that most immigrants and their descendants have a direct and enormous impact on a countries crime rate, particlualy Africans. If you really and seriously dispute that then I will provide evidence for you.

Incidentally, Iceland, an almost completely homogenous 'western' country has the lowest crime rate in the world. Fact. Guess which one has the highest?

Our pension fund has been robbed to pay for those elderly immigrants who have not put into that fund. Fact. There is a £440m gap because of this that cannot be made up in line with demand. Fact. So we are all going to have to work longer to offset this. Fact.

TB is on the rise gain thanks to immigrants. Fact. Two thirds of all new HIV case are brought by immigration. Fact.

I think that is beyond merely disagreeing with you contention and more into the realms of disproving it.

As I said, this is always an emotionally charged debate; your rationale for immigration seems to be based on humanitarian grounds rather then any factual benefit or process of logic.

It is very diffcult, as a human being to see suffering and in the world and not feel the same.

But future historians will look back on this once homogenous nation and wonder why, given that almost all conflicts in this world have arisen from ethnic and cultural clashes we decided to import the entire world and its problems here. We have now have, all packed in: Greeks who do not like Turks and vice versa, Pakistanis who do not like Indians, Albanians who do not like Serbians, Somalians who do not like Ethiopians, Iranians who do not like Iraqis, Rwandan Hutu's who do not like Rwandan Tutsi's , Muslim Sunni's who do not like muslim Shia's, Africans and Caribbean's who have a street level animosity, so and so forth. Generalisations I know, but generally true nonetheless.

Where will it all lead? To one of the many situations in one of the many places I have served in. The kind of situation that genuine asylum seekers came here to escape from in the first place.

And I am far from a 'little Englander.' I have lived, worked and served in dozens of countries across the globe. I have seen that the thin veneer of civilisation does not take much scraping to reveal the beast beneath.

I notice Jim Jay that you are unable to answer why immigrants come here and to other 'western' nations in order to find a better life and why they are not able to produce it for themselves.

That is the crux of this issue.

The answer to that gives you the answer to our destiny.

rich said...

Having just had a look at The Sentinel's blog, it feels almost pointless to try to engage in a mature debate. I see from your blog that lots of nasty people have called you a racist. It's very easy to see why. But here I go anyway...

On the NHS: The point that you are missing when you claim the NHS is put under pressure by immigration is that the proportion of the general population belonging to ethnic minorities is very small and the proportion of "immigrants" (in the sense of people who have arrived here in recent years) is even smaller. There are a disproportionately high number of recent immigrants working in the helth service, so there is a net benefit to the health service in terms of a health worker to patient ratio. The idea that it is immigrants placing undue strain on the NHS is fantasy. It is only possible to hold the view that you do, if you ignore the facts.

The following is a link to a BBC article from their website today. It talks of predicted shortage of NHS staff. This is partly because of cuts in funding and staff that are happening right now, and partly because we have an ageing (mostly white, mostly indigenous) population which places an ever increasing demand on health services.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6228659.stm

AN said...

This guy is so funny.

He disputes that all britons are immigrants, so does this mean that human life evolved in britain?

And comparing Britain with Iceland, well there are more people in just Swindon than the whole of Iceland, so it is not really a great comparison.

But according to the Scandinavian Review (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3760/is_199810/ai_n8825466), the West Fjords town of Isafjordur volunteered for an immigration reception centre because "Isafjordur desperately needs new residents in order to sustain a viable level of economic activity. .. the youth of the West Fjords sought out higher education as an escape route .. The result is a slight labor shortage."

So even in Iceland, immigrants fill gaos in the Labour market.

Sorry Sentinel, perhaps you would do better posting on Stormfront, where your half arsed prejudices may be treated as pearls of wisdom

a very public sociologist said...

I liked your article Jim.

When I used to read the Scum at home I remember they pulled a statistical trick to claim the "average Briton" had savings of £26,000.

What piffle.

The depressing thing is the amount of coverage this "research" has got. It's akin to the airline lobby coming out with a report saying train travel is bad for you.

The Sentinel said...

Yeah, all very predicable nonsense. Why is it they come here again?

Rich, if you had read the blog, particularly that post on labels you would have some understanding of the process they serve in shutting down debate; instead just taking part in that process you should at least understand it.

The point your missing on the NHS is that the proportion of immigrants needing and using the service is disproportionate to the total numbers present here; because of the high rate of disease such as TB and HIV they overwhelm our service and as such additional staff are needed to cover it.

Exactly the same has happened in Malta virtually overnight, with the tragic side effect of over 70% of the nurse in one hospital testing positive for TB. ( http://www.vivamalta.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=122&Itemid=2 )

And the BMA say that 1 in 10 British doctors, trained at a cost of £250,000 cannot find work in the NHS. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=362923&in_page_id=1774 )

AN, "He disputes that all britons are immigrants, so does this mean that human life evolved in britain?" Where did it evolve? Pangaea? It's a theory and nothing else. The truth is they have no idea where we all came from.

What difference would it make if Iceland has the same population as Bognor Regis? The roads still need sweeping, the bins stilling need emptying, buses driven, etc. and as it stands, the Icelandic's still do virtually all of those jobs. That article you refer to doesn't mention needing immigrants at all, just that they needed new residents that could easily come Reykjavik, Hofn, Raufahofn, , etc.

You then go on to the predictable abuse after proving nothing at all, other then your ignorance.

It is easy to cherry pick portions of a protracted argument and try to tear shreds out it rather then taking the whole position on. But even at this you fail lamentably.

What is it about this debate that makes some people close their eyes to the bleeding obvious, and others to react with a fury and hatred that can only derive from fear? What are you so afraid of?

Through all of this hot air no one has been able to answer why immigrants come here and to other 'western' nations in the first place, in order to find a better life and why they are not able to produce it for themselves in their countries.

Duncan Money said...

Why is it they come here again?

Since you can't figure out this yourself without resorting to a racist argument of 'immigrants can't produce a better life for themselves because they are inferior' I’ll answer it.

Maybe no-one's answered you so far because it's such a stupid question. You might not know but most immigrants don’t come to Western countries. The top destination for asylum seekers and immigrants is Pakistan and Iran is 2nd. Britain is 32nd in the table of countries taking in asylum seekers and refugees.

You’ve obviously been blinded by the scare stories in the media about asylum seekers. Don’t worry you’re not alone; the average person overestimates the amount of asylum seekers there are in the UK by 1000%.

And all this from the person who wrote on their blog “Too many idiots with a keyboard are churning out unfounded nonsense about the world we live in”.

Anyway, people come to Britain to find a better life when their own countries are hit by war, economic crises, disease, famine or natural disasters. British people have been doing it for centuries. In the 18th, 19th and 20th century millions of people left Britain for America and today many thousands leave every year for Spain or France.

Just because Britain is currently a stable country with a growing economy, this is an anomaly if you look at British history, doesn't make 'us' any superior to people of any other nation. It is a long and complex question as to why some countries suffer from war and economic crises and Britain, as the country that ruled over so much of the world, is far from innocent in relation to these disasters.

If Britain is so great why do British people move to Spain, France and Hong Kong? Is it because they are not able to create a better life for themselves at home?

Peter said...

It all makes sense now thanks to Sentinel. It's because they've got brown skin.

Unlike those wonderful vikings and anglo saxons who were apparently virtually indistinguishable from all the groups already here.

Personally, I think I've got more common ground with many Iranians I've met than a 9th Century Briton would have with a boatload of VIking invaders - cultural globalisation and all that.

The Sentinel said...

I didn't actually say that 'immigrants can't produce a better life for themselves because they are inferior." You did. And bizarrely assigned the quote to me.

But then, having read your blog(s) I can see that you are utterly obsessed with this issue and 'fascists' , though I note that you have instituted censorship on one your blogs whereby people have to submit their opinions to you for your approval before they are allowed to be read, effectively stifling dissent and any opinion that does not conform to yours. Generally this kind of practice is recognised as 'fascist'.

But then I also note that you take it upon yourself to tell people who they can and cannot vote for as well.

I have found the figures you may have used in your comment that place Pakistan as the top refugee destination and Iran the second.( http://www.sewrec.org.uk/paintback/Where_in_the_World.doc) Actually these figures place them the other way around but Germany is named as the third most popular destination. Which is strange as Britain is consistently cited as the top EU destiantion ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4601055.stm ) So these figures are not really consistent are they? Which is unsurprising because the National Audit Office has no idea of the amount of successful or failed 'asylum seekers' still living in this country ( http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/05-06/050676.htm ) which is unsurprising because even the Government doesn't know (or care) how many illegal immigrants are here anyway. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4988816.stm )

So tell me, how on earth are you in a position to say "the average person overestimates the amount of asylum seekers there are in the UK by 1000%" when no one knows how many immigrants we have here. Legal, illegal, economic, asylum, or any other category. Where did you find the time to do such an accurate head count?

I think you'll find that the numbers of Britons originally sent to what is now the US numbered in the tens of thousands not millions (I think you are confusing the Irish potato famine immigration rush) Many more were later paid by the Government of the day to emigrate there and were promised free land. Who wouldn't go?

Far from it being an 'anomaly' that Britain is stable with a robust economy and citing 'history' (with no specific part of it) as evidence, this country has enjoyed enormous unity and stability compared to other parts of the world. Where in our history has there been a Bosnia event? Or a Rwandan genocide? Or a Darfur situation? Or Ukrainian / Kulak slaughter? Or a Pol Pot style massacre?

To say "It is a long and complex question as to why some countries suffer from war and economic crises" means that you do not know the answer.

And far from it being a "stupid question" it is the most blindingly obvious one to ask, Do you let just anyone into your house? Particularly if you have babies and young children?

And as to why British people are moving in droves to places like Spain and France, for God's sake ask them! It is because they are escaping the cesspit that this country has become. They are escaping the immigrants and the effects they have; they are escaping a country they no longer recognise or can call their own. And they have enough foresight to envisage the inevitable consequence of it all.

Believe me I know.

I am never happier these days then when a contact takes me overseas. It may not be ideal elsewhere but at least it is none of my business.

The Sentinel said...

By the way Duncan Money, have you googled 'bread basket of Africa' yet and seen how way of the mark you were there too?

Duncan Money said...

I didn't actually say that 'immigrants can't produce a better life for themselves because they are inferior."

You didn’t use those exact words no but remarks such as “why are these people not able to replicate whatever that attraction is in their own homelands?”, and, “why immigrants come here and to other 'western' nations in order to find a better life and why they are not able to produce it for themselves”, are clearly rhetorical devices to allege that the reason immigrants come to western nations is because they cannot produce that same standard of life in their own nations. Thus you are alleging that immigrants are inferior to the indigenous people of Britain.

But then, having read your blog(s) I can see that you are utterly obsessed with this issue and 'fascists'

Well not ‘utterly obsessed’. That’s hyperbole and illustrates how you move from having a rational argument to attempting to score points when your argument is weak. Also, since fascists threaten to kill me on a weekly basis is this not grounds for taking an interest in what they are doing?

though I note that you have instituted censorship on one your blogs whereby people have to submit their opinions to you for your approval

How? Anyone is free to comment on Nation-of-Duncan and I will not delete it unless it is an anonymous comment. Go on, try it. Maryport Against Racism has comment moderation but I don’t run that blog.

Generally this kind of practice is recognised as 'fascist'.

Only by people who don’t know what fascism is. Fascism is an anti-semitic, anti-communist, anti-democratic, anti-liberal, racist, corporatist ideology based on the supremacy of either the nation state or race.

Moderating comments on a blog is not ‘fascist’.

I also note that you take it upon yourself to tell people who they can and cannot vote for as well.

Please find some quotes to support this absurd accusation.

So these figures are not really consistent are they?

But still, both your figures and mean show how most immigrants are not heading to the western world as you originally asserted by to countries like Iran and Pakistan.

how on earth are you in a position to say "the average person overestimates the amount of asylum seekers there are in the UK by 1000%

No I didn’t do a head count, stop being ridiculous and trying to score points. That is a figure I got from this leaflet on the myths surrounding asylum seekers:

http://www.workerspower.com/downloads/AsylumLiesLeaflet.pdf

I think you'll find that the numbers of Britons originally sent to what is now the US numbered in the tens of thousands not millions

Got a source for that? Because when I went to the museum of immigration on Ellis Island New York the figure given there was millions from the 16th century the present day. This does not include those who fled the Irish potato famine and this was part of Britain at the time.

this country has enjoyed enormous unity and stability compared to other parts of the world

And Britain has been lucky in that respect. This is due to a lucky accident of geography more than anything, the fact that Britain is an island means it has been historically insulated from the worst excesses of violence that have periodically swept Europe, Napoleonic Wars, WWI, etc.

Where in our history has there been a Bosnia event? Or a Rwandan genocide? Or a Darfur situation? Or Ukrainian / Kulak slaughter? Or a Pol Pot style massacre?

These have been comparatively rare in British history but right up until the 20th century Britain has inflicted events similar to those on other nations. The slaughter of the Mau Mau in the 1950’s in Kenya for example.

Of course if you go back further into British history you find many more of these events have occurred in the British Isles, periodic invasions of Scotland right up until the Battle of Culloden in 1745 were occupied with mass slaughter and pillaging.

It is also comparatively few nations that have suffered the catastrophic events you describe. Most nations on Earth haven’t suffered events like that.

To say "It is a long and complex question as to why some countries suffer from war and economic crises" means that you do not know the answer.

No this merely means I am less pedantic than you are.

It is because they are escaping the cesspit that this country has become.

This would be the same country that has a falling crime rate, booming economy, low unemployment and rising wages? Are we talking about the same place?

have you googled 'bread basket of Africa' yet and seen how way of the mark you were there too?

I have googled ‘bread basket of Africa’ and I have found no evidence to suggest Zimbabwe was called the ‘bread basket of Africa’. All I have found are sources written comparatively recently saying it used to be called the ‘bread basket of Africa’, i.e the past tense. I have yet to see a source from the time stating that Zimbabwe or Rhodesia is the bread basket of Africa and I have in my possession several books and information leaflets about Rhodesia in the 60’s and 70’s. The nearest I can find is ‘the bread basket of Southern Africa’. Not quite the same.

Chris Baldwin said...

They're not the Queen's swans! They're yours and mine! Or at least they will be...

The Sentinel said...

Duncan Money,

Look, I have read your blog and I know that you enjoy nothing more then a protracted tit-for-tat I said this and you then said that but now look at this type 'argument.'

Your have alluded to my apparent 'racism' (and that word does not actually mean anything) and although I have to justify myself to no man, I will tell you a few things to set you straight.

But first, where do you get your figures on crime or anything else from? Is it from the same pack of liars who don't know how many immigrants they have allowed into this country? The same pack of liars who swore that there were WMD's in Iraq? The same pack of liars who hounded (if not killed) an expert on the subject when he dared to speak the truth? The same pack of liars who have sold peerages for money? The same pack of liars who thought it would be good practice to have Blair questioned on the day the Diana report was released? The same pack of liars who thought 9/11 was a great day to bury bad news?

Or is it from a leaflet that was produced by marxist's who have a vested interest in the "one race one nation" fantasy? And if so where did they get their figures from?

Nobody knows how many immigrants are here. No one. Not you. Not them. Not the Government. Not me. No one.

This Government cannot even catch the extremely dangerous criminal 'asylum seekers' who only came to light after some awkward questions were asked or even say with any accuracy how many there are. They knew about the problem all along but did nothing; lied about it when it was exposed and then bumbled incompetently to resolve it when the truth could no longer be perverted. And have now given up even trying to rectify it.

If these lying, corrupt, incompetent criminal disgraces estimate 7% of the population is immigrant then you can bet it is at least three times higher then that figure.

You say that you are not obsessed with 'fascists' but then say 'fascists' are threatening to kill you every week.

How do you they are 'fascists'?

If you knew who they were they would be in jail right now. A few anonymous e-mail's or phone calls or whatever might do wonders to boost you sense of self-importance but it does not constitute a political conspiracy.

Let me give you a bit of free advice: if someone really wants you dead they do not tell you about it beforehand.

"DON’T VOTE BNP!" the post you signed on 'Maryport against racism' screams. You are telling people who not to vote for and so by extension you are saying who people can vote. i. e anyone else.

This is the same blog that appears on your profile and that you contribute to and has censorship enabled on.

I have read that you clearly do not understand what 'fascism' really was and far from being "anti- Semitic", the Nazis had to force Mussolini to take persecutory measures against the jews.

However, the real Fascists died with Mussolini just as the real Nazis died with Hitler.

The people of this country, my grandparents included, fought tooth and nail to prevent them from surviving and at a huge cost. To all of us. Only just this week have we finally paid of the war debt.

The real Fascists and Nazis cost the British much and cost us for a very long time but that doesn't prevent people like you labelling any Briton who disagrees with you with the hugely offensive brand of the mythical Nazi or Fascist.

The Mau Mau were a very nasty bunch of insurgents, and whether they had the right to be insurgents or not is beside the point that they were notoriously ruthless in their application of violence. Hacking to death, after rape, was their favoured technique. In the real world fire is met with fire.


You have no idea of why some countries fail and some succeed, and say that it is just an "accident" that Britain has succeeded, along with every other western nation.

Let me tell you why countries succeed and fail.

You are too young to remember, let along have served in the horror that was Bosnia or Rwanda. I am not, and I did serve in both places, amongst many others.

And before you spout the usual marxist insults about all soldiers being murderers and rapists let me tell you that I saved many, many more lives then I took.

Bosnia was a particularly gruesome experience and one that will hunt me until my last breath. Only the people that served there have any idea of the truth of what really happened there although a guy who has commented in this debate has produced the most accurate article on the aftermath of that conflict and Kosovo I have ever read.

http://socialistunity.blogspot.com/ : The truth about Kosovo

Despite all of the political dancing, the only reason Bosnia imploded, the same reason that virtually every other country implodes is because the groups there had diametrically opposed ideas, traditions, cultures, religions and yes, their were not racially akin. The problems have surfaced and subsided over the countless centuries this troubled mix has cohabited. But when it did explode again the fury and hate was breathtaking.

I have seen babies nailed to walls through their heads, priests crucified, whole villages raped and burned. Entire families tracked down and murdered out of unfathomable malice. Not only did I have the extreme misfortunate to witness it but one of my duties was to provide FFE certificates before the bodies could be disposed of.

And that was the Bosnian faction of the Armija BiH (now known as the KLA) I am describing here. To be sure, the Serbs committed many atrocities, but they generally lacked the indescribably inhuman extremity of torture and mutilation that the ''muhjadeen' and Bosnian militia practised.

Our hands were tied, but we did everything, EVERYTHING we could to protect the innocent, regardless of race or religion. I can tell you with no uncertainty that if it had been British troops instead of Dutch at Srebrenica the only people to die that day would have been the Serb militiamen.

I personally risked my life in Bosnia countless times, pretty much every day, in order to do anything I could to prevent more innocent lives from being taken. I was commended for retrieving three muslim children to safely from a minefield.

I was lucky.

Some of my friends and colleagues were not and paid for their humanitarian actions with their lives or their limbs.

However all of us are indelibly scarred by the whole experience, if not on the surface. The highest suicide rate of veterans of any operational theatre in the history of the British army is amongst those who served in Bosnia.

And trust me I can fully understand why.

Most of the homeless you see in the cities are ex-servicemen and most of them served in Bosnia.

When I left the services, I was waiting for my final settlement to be arranged and had to go to the DSS to ask for help. I was aggressively told by a woman who's english and heavy accent told me that she was a recent arrival from India that as I had not served the full 22 years I had voluntarily breached a contact and was entitled to nothing. Her whole demeanour and attitude told me that she despised the service I had just left. I was told by the manager, an African who was also had clearly not long arrived that the decision was final and that if I needed help I should contact the army (that I had just left) and if I didn't change my "attitude" he would call the police.

You cannot imagine how outraged I was. Having paid more then my fair share in taxes (including the 'charge in lieu of council tax' even when overseas) whilst never taking a penny back, and having served and risked my life in the name of this country I was aggressively dismissed by people who had clearly done neither.

If, on the other hand I had illegally entered this country after having paid and contributed nothing I would have been housed and fed and treated with dignity.

Again, I was lucky and managed to get myself on my feet. Many were not so lucky and ended up on the street.

The problems in Rwanda, just as horrific and far greater in magnitude then Bosnia all boiled down to the same thing again: people of diametrically opposed cultures, ideas and outlook inevitably clash, eventually.

And the Rwandan people were almost racially akin, but around one million were left dead all the same.

So what did we do as a result of these conflicts?

We imported them here in their tens of thousands. All sides. The same people who descended to such a level of barbarity in their own countries because they could not live together, we brought here. And many more besides who's hatred for one another still burns.

If you really believe that Britain is some miracle cure for problems as old as man then you are seriously deluded. The last real riot we saw in this country was between blacks and asians in Birmingham. The hateful outpouring was eventually sparked by nonsense devoid of reality, but the hatred behind it had built up steadily up over years.

That showed everyone how easy it is for these things to manifest into violence.

Do you really think it has gone away, never to return? That as they add more numbers to their communities, and the problems that were clearly present exacerbate, that the end result will be any different?

Or will it explode again, sometime, along with a thousand other problems in a thousand other places.

And who will have to step in to stop it and pick up the pieces?

You?

Or men like me, who have already seen enough to last us ten life times.

Unless you seriously propose that we bring EVERYONE with problems in their own countries here then the problems they have faced will still have to be endured by the ones who remain.

And we will have solved nothing

Our time and money would be better spent trying to help them get over their issues in their own countries so that EVERYONE will benefit and future generations might not have to suffer.

Including our ours.

Instead of organising irrelevant leaflet drops and pontificating on the internet you should put your money (and your life) where your mouth is and go and help these people you are so desperate to bring here, in their own countries. Join an aid programme; set one up yourself.

Do something.

I have already done as much as I can, and I think I've paid my dues.

You on the other hand haven't contributed anything to this country (or the world) yet but you seem to think you have the right to give away it against the wishes of the majority of the people who have.

And you seem to think you have the right to impose your childish, naive, deluded student politic morality on the rest of us.

As you experience a bit more of life, you may perhaps learn that most people find other people who preach pious morality, like some sort of infallible saint, immensely suspect, offensive and patronising.

Really, grow up boy. Get away from that computer screen and see the world. Experience life. Help where you can. Put something in.

Then come back in ten years time and tell me if your fantasy of global harmony all in one miraculous country can ever really exist.

But I seriously doubt if the question will need answering by then.

As for why countries succeed it is because they are homogenous. Akin. They share more in common then do they in difference.

Something else I can tell you from my service days is that despite any regional banter we may have, Taff, Jock, Scouser, Cockney, etc. when the shit hits the fan we are all one and the same. Some unspoken, intangible but very real bond holds us together.

I never once had to look back in combat to see if my back was covered. I knew it was. Instinctively.

That has far more to do with who we are then any training we ever received.

That is why the British army is envied around the world. That is why we are the best.

That is also why we have never had any major massacres or major problems in this country.

That is why we are a success.

No accident.

As a footnote to your puerile and baseless 'racism' charge, when I owned a small tour business in a fairly remote part of Australia a few years ago I made a point to employ youngsters who would otherwise have been unemployed and not only gave them a wage but also taught them some skills. Including aborigine's that no one else would employ.

I did it not because it gave me a warm glow of smugness or a sense of moral superiority but because I felt it was the right thing to do.

And when the business failed (in large part because of that policy) the youngsters were genuinely gutted not just for themselves but for me as well.

I was as sad to leave them as they were for me to go.

Tell me, what have you ever done to produce some positive tangible benefit for anyone or anything other then your own ego?

If you want to shout about the worlds problems then you must offer some solutions.

Get out there and implement them.

Peter said...

Sentinel - I'm expanding on my short flippant post because I feel a bit trite after your very considered and personal post.

From what I can tell, you are a racist (or racialist), and I assume it is only the stigma attached to the term which causes you to resist it.

e.g. if I say, "I'm not a Darwinist because evolution is a FACT." - actually, I am still a darwinist.

However, you are unusual among racists in that you have a lot of first hand experience of these problems - which gives you more credibility than most.

Isn't it human nature though for groups to split off and form their own cultures? I can think of at least one part of the United Kingdom that has been beset by terrorism and senseless killings for a long time - both parties Christian, racially indistinct.

It was also europeans who managed to start two world wars.

Migration and globalisation on the whole don't make the world any better or worse in themselves.
On the one hand, you get culture clashes - hardline islam vs the secular west etc. - undoubtedly this causes conflict. But on the other, you also get more cross-cultural links that diminish ignorance and mistrust, and expand people's horizons.

New cultures will be created, others will decline. Nothing stays static. The good and bad counterbalance. We're all humans - capable of creating cultures of fraternity and of hate, no matter where we're from.

Haraldur said...

Sentinel your comments on Iceland are simply laughable. The Icelanders don't do those jobs you mentioned. The immigrants do them more or less because most Icelanders aren't willing to do them anymore. And they also work many skilled jobs that there simply aren't enough Icelanders around to do. Without them we would be seriously undermanned in the fishing industry(our biggest export is fish) and the building industry among others. Quite frankly you have no idea what you are talking about.

The Sentinel said...

Quite frankly I do.

I am fully aware of the relatively recent immigration into Iceland, but even so most of the jobs are still filled at present by Icelandic's.

Its funny how Iceland managed to do all the jobs themselves, up untill about 10 years ago when it was suddenly decoided that they could no longor cope; after a thousand years of doing so.

Considering Iceland has around 3200 people officially unemployed there is at least 3200 immigrants you don't need.

http://www.vinnumalastofnun.is/english/news/

But in any case, you are obviously happy about it, but what about the majority of your countrymen?

In a recent poll, 77% of Icelandic's viewed immigration as problem, with 33% thinking it is big problem.

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=243705

Even your liberal party calls it a "serious mistake."

And In Fréttabladid, Hafsteinsson is quoted as saying, “The Liberal Party expressed the view that Icelandic society was not prepared to receive the vast number of foreigners that would come to Iceland when the green light was given to the free passage of labor on 1 May this year. It has indeed transpired that various problems have followed that we are not able to address ... It would have been better to utilize the manpower that we already have in this country. There are people who have trouble finding work in Iceland, for example people over the age of 50 and disabled persons.”

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=242500

Obviously.

Is this immigration really needed, or is it for companies to get around paying decent wages in order to stay competitive and make more profit? Along with other agendas that accompany all immigration.

Moreover, is what the majority of the people want?

It would appear not.

The Sentinel said...

Peter,

About NI (somewhere else I have served) as I mentioned, Rwandans too are virtually racially indistinct:

"The problems in Rwanda, just as horrific and far greater in magnitude then Bosnia all boiled down to the same thing again: people of diametrically opposed cultures, ideas and outlook inevitably clash, eventually.

And the Rwandan people were almost racially akin, but around one million were left dead all the same."

That is why Northern Ireland imploded: opposing cultures, ideas and outlooks.

As for Europeans starting two world wars, the last one only became a 'world war' after Japan attacked the US. (And to be fair after a lot of provocation, but still a valid point nonetheless.)

"From what I can tell, you are a racist (or racialist), and I assume it is only the stigma attached to the term which causes you to resist it"

It is being labelled anything that causes me to resist. I am just me. I am not a 'Nazi', or a 'Fascist', or a Conservative; Liberal or Communist; Anarchist; Nihilist or a socialist. I am neither a christian nor an atheist or a believer in religion. I am just me.

The word 'racist' means nothing whereas racialist means that someone recognises the varying attributes of race. It still does not mean that they hate anyone.

To say that someone who believes in evolution must be a Darwinist is faulty logic really, because they may well have their own ideas on evolution that do not even come close to Darwin's.

And Darwin was not the first to expound upon evolution, just the first to articulate all of his ideas into a recognised thesis so what was it called before him? What label did those people have?

Very few people ever subscribe fully to any idea or even belief. What label can we put on those people?

The Sentinel said...

b.t.w DM...

These are just a few of the 'bread basket of Africa' links I got by googling the phrase. I won't provide all 169,000, I am sure you can do that for yourself. (although you say you already have?)

They are as diverse as the Christian monitor, to the BBC to CNN to the CFR amongst many others.

A typical story, one from CNN starts like this:

"CNN) -- Twelve-year-old Beatrice returns from the fields with small animals she's caught for dinner.
Her mother, Elizabeth, prepares the meat and cooks it on a grill made of three stones supporting a wood fire. It's just enough food, she says, to feed her starving family of six.

Tonight, they dine on rats.

"Look what we've been reduced to eating?" she said. "How can my children eat rats in a country that used to export food? This is a tragedy." (Watch as Beatrice digs for rodents in the fields of Zimbabwe)

This is a story about how Zimbabwe, once dubbed southern Africa's bread basket, has in six short years become a basket case. It is about a country that once exported surplus food now apparently falling apart, with many residents scrounging for rodents to survive."

If I can find these references so easy, why can't you?

Not very honest...

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8020

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0919/p17s01-bogn.html

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0612a/zimbabwefarm.html

http://proggiemuslima.wordpress.com/2006/12/20/zimbabwe-former-bread-basket-of-africa-reduced-to-eating-rats/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1064589.stm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2081650.ece

http://enoughzimbabwe.org/the-scene/

http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=18353

http://www.global-sisterhood-network.org/content/view/1428/59/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3674448.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3674448.stm

http://southafrica.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/11770.php

http://www.expertopinions.org.uk/30/morning-tea-my-dear-zimbabwe-then-and-now

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/zimbabwe/landreform/agriculture

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/zimbabwe/landreform/agriculture

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/12/19/koinange.zimbabwe/index.html

http://www.go2africa.com/zimbabwe/people/economy.asp

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28422

http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/world/where/safrica/zimbabp.htm

http://www.interaction.org/newswire/detail.php?id=872

http://www.rense.com/general64/mugg.htm

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/66747ec92dad0b5d85256c3900745024

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9121/africas_food_crisis.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9121/africas_food_crisis.html

http://agriculture.einnews.com/southern-africa/

http://www.aegis.com/news/wsj/2003/WJ031210.html

http://www.aegis.com/news/wsj/2003/WJ031210.html

Haraldur said...

Seriously you are incredibly naive if you think there can be a 0% unemployment rate. And I like how you distort the findings of that poll, well done. Fact is most of the unemployed people are unemployed for a reason. They are usually lazy bums and drug addicts(I know some of these people). And the Liberal party is a joke party that is out to get votes because it was in danger of disappearing from parliament. Funnily enough this new policy caused a major rift in the party and made it an even bigger joke. Fact is without these immigrants major developments like Kárahnjúkavirkjun, the new opera house, all those office buildings in Borgartún(street in Reykjavík) and so on would be delayed years if not decades with just the Icelandic workforce. Especially with the Liberal party's idea of getting people over 50 and the disabled to work on them. And there are strong unions here so companies won't get away with paying the foreign workforce next to nothing. And quite frankly you show a lot of ignorance about Icelandic history.

The Sentinel said...

I think it is you and those "lazy bums and drug addicts" you associate with that are naive.

Do you really think that it is anyone else's responsibility to feed and clothe people who are capable of working but choose not to? It is theft and fraud should be treated as such.

Something Iceland may well find out in the near future is the blindingly obvious fact that it is unsustainable in the long run anyhow. We have are here in the UK. We have made it so easy not work that it is considered by many as an alternative lifestyle. And the Government covers it up by giving essentially the same benefit different names. And our taxes rise whilst our reserves fall.

I am not sure why you believe the information in that poll was distorted by me, and anyone who follows that link can see it for themselves. That was why I provided it.

While we are on the subject of naivety you say that the Liberal party was out to get votes with this policy as if this were some sort of unacceptable perversion. That is the function of political parties. And given the numbers who view immigration as a problem in Iceland they chose wisely. I think it was the manner it was presented i. e "Iceland for the Icelanders" that made it unsavoury to members of even the Liberal party.

It is not just the Liberal party who are worried though is it? Clearly. At a lecture at the Reykjavík Academia, associate professor in Political Science at the University of Iceland, Eiríkur Bergmann Einarsson, called the government's and political parties' lack of immigration policies "terrifying". In an article in Fréttabladid from last Monday, Eiríksson is quoted saying that a multi-cultural society has developed in Iceland, and that there is a risk that immigrants will become isolated in ghettos

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=198335

And there is a good reason Icelandic's should be worried. The official figure given in 2005 for foreigners in Iceland is half of the real figure according to Halldór Gröndal of the Federation of Labor Unions in Iceland. It is not really feasible that your Government got it so wrong for obvious reasons; it is much more likely that they deliberately lied following a strong European tradition in these matters, as ours do, until the figures are completely obscured and no one has any idea how many people there are, if they should be here, where they are from and how much it is all costing.

Interestingly, only 13,000 of the 30,000 reported foreigners were actually working.

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=240037

I have reason to go to Iceland on occasion and I am not a complete stranger to it. I can tell you that I have never come across any immigrants doing the service and infrastructure jobs I was talking about.

I know that a lot of the building work is contracted out and attracts immigrant labour as do the fish packing and processing jobs. The same jobs your "lazy bum and drug addict" associates should be made to do.

As for the construction of the opera house allegedly / possibly being delayed as reason for immigration, it is not really the strongest hand is it?

But if you observe the two main organs of foreign recruitment to Iceland:

http://www.ninukot.is/

http://europa.eu.int/eures/main.jsp?acro=job&lang=en&catId=482&parentCategory=482

You will notice that the former rarely has more then one job a fortnight and the latter rarely has more then 10 a week. Of which only 1 or 2 are asking for non-Icelandic workers.

Hardly a huge demand. Which is probably why more then half of the foreigners already in Iceland are out of work. Hardly a reason for immigration, more of a reason to get the "lazy bums and drug addicts" straightened out and into work.

As for strong unions, we once had those too. Not any more. We also have a huge black economy where the unions have no say anyhow ad the wages are appalling.

I did not claim to be an Icelandic history scholar, but I fail to see how the only statement I made on Icelandic history "Its funny how Iceland managed to do all the jobs themselves, up until about 10 years ago when it was suddenly decided that they could no longer cope; after a thousand years of doing so" really warrants your statement of "And quite frankly you show a lot of ignorance about Icelandic history."

But, because I am not in the slightest bit naive, I am aware that most of the people in this debate have no interest in really debating this issue because they are already vested in the propagation of its "benefits" regardless of the facts.

So much of the commentary offered is little more then an excuse for thinly veiled insults.

Bob Doney said...

Am I right in thinking that the Poles may not be the very best example of the Protestant work ethic?