Thursday, 28 June 2012

There's some refreshingly rare truth-telling in this comment piece from The Times. She loses points for a facile condemnation of the English Defence League.

The feudal societies imported from Pakistan and Bangladesh throw up problems that no one wants to address

A week on, I am still digesting Ed Miliband’s apology for his party’s woeful underestimate of both the scale of immigration and public concern about it. Mr Miliband said that Labour had let too many immigrants from Eastern Europe into the country too quickly by lifting controls on the new EU member states before others did.
But Labour wasn’t just “insufficiently alive to the burdens” of ordinary people, as he claimed. It actively smeared many who voiced concerns. James Cameron, the envoy to Romania, and Steve Moxon, the civil servant who revealed that the Home Office was rubber-stamping bogus visa applications in 2004, were branded as racists. When Frank Field set up the Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration in 2008, colleagues openly called him a racist. This column could be filled with the names of people who tried to express reasonable concerns — including social workers and policemen at the sharp end — and were silenced.

This censorship was aided by the misuse of statistics. When Westminster City Council and others asked for more money to run services because so many more people were registering with GPs and schools, the Government flatly denied the claims. When the campaign group Migration Watch predicted in 2002 that net immigration would reach two million over the coming decade (which has turned out to be an underestimate), it was attacked as “muddled”, “duplicitous” and worse.

The Home Office stuck to its notorious estimate that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would move to Britain after EU enlargement, though more than a million had arrived by the end of 2009. When Labour left office, it was still basing its estimates of movements on the ONS Passenger Survey, a survey at ports and airports that is entirely voluntary. A government that wanted the truth would have done what the coalition is now doing: gathering data from councils and GPs and laboriously restoring border controls.

If Mr Miliband’s remarks are to usher in a new era of glasnost, he must recognise that the truth has been further hindered by the preference by all parties for couching immigration in terms of Eastern Europeans: a tradition he continued last week. The public is given the impression that nothing can be done because most people come here from the EU. But in fact the EU accounts for less than a quarter of the 3.5 million long-term immigrants who the Office for National Statistics says have come to the UK since 1997.

The focus on white Europeans also keeps issues about cultural differences at bay. For years the Labour MP Ann Cryer was simply ignored when she raised concerns about forced marriages and honour crimes. When I wrote in 2003 that some women in England were living in similar conditions to those I had witnessed as an aid worker in Bangladesh, but were further isolated by language, the Muslim Council of Britain put me on its watch list. Three years later the Blair Government dropped plans to ban forced marriage because the Muslim Council warned that doing so would “stigmatise communities”. These issues were to be hidden from public view: and damn the victims.
Brave campaigning by women such as Jasvinder Sanghera has helped to change this. But fear of offending racial sensibilities still makes the political class look away from one particular group of immigrants, from parts of Bangladesh and Pakistan — particularly Sylhet and Mirpur — which remains almost wholly segregated. In many of the places where people from these two regions come to live, more than 60 per cent would have to move house to achieve an even spread across their district. This is a very high score on what social scientists call the “index of dissimilarity”.

I have visited a British school where all the boys came from Mirpur, and the parents listened to the imam not the (white) headteacher. I have met health workers who are still struggling to persuade male relatives to let mothers attend clinics. I have met doctors who are seriously worried by the high incidence of birth defects among the Pakistani community in England, which they put down to the frequency of marriage between first cousins.

We have imported feudal societies into our midst but ignored the people trapped inside them. Fewer than one in four women from these communities have jobs. Many still do not speak English. Immigrants who cannot get jobs, or work only in one sector, will not integrate. Immigrants who cannot communicate will not integrate. The more relatives arrive, the larger these ghettos will become and the harder it will be to tear down the walls.

For the past eight years, polls have suggested that British alarm over immigration focuses on the sheer scale of the numbers; but there is also a feeling of unfairness about those who do not work, or do not integrate, but use public services. Polls by YouGov for Prospect magazine last month suggest that the tone of opinion is hardening: 54 per cent of those surveyed said that “all further immigration should be halted”; and 53 per cent said the worst thing about the UK was “the number of immigrants”, ahead of welfare scroungers and crime. These people cannot all be crazed members of the English Defence League.

In the Westminster village, people are getting het up about the possibility that top universities may be refused a visa for a top scientist (a problem which can surely be fixed). Outside the bubble, people worry about chain migration. They see extra doors appearing in semis in Hendon and elsewhere, hiding desperate people who are bunking up ten to a room. They want the Government to distinguish between hard-working foreigners and people who have little hope of making an economic contribution because they are illiterate in their own language.

Mr Miliband was right to call for more stringent enforcement of the minimum wage and laws against businesses employing illegal workers. But if he would talk about the disenfranchised people we have neither embraced nor rejected; if he would support the coalition’s efforts to tighten the rules; if he would stop implying that there is actually very little we can do; that would make his apology easier to swallow.
Source: The Times (£)


alas said...

Milliband's apology and this article are not really movement in the right direction at all. They keep talking about immigrants as if they are all the same, and as if the problems that large numbers of them bring are purely economic ones. Well this is complete nonsense. I personally feel more in common with a recently arrived Polish immigrant than I do a 2nd or 3rd generation Pakistani from Manchester. I don't even dislike European immigration, in fact the more the better; those million eastern Europeans living in Britain at least will postpone the day that the third-worlders will take over. Furthermore, at least their kids will be as British as anyone.

It seems like the elite get the people's anger at immigration, and try to talk tough against it so they can win votes, but just can't pull themselves to say that people really just don't like change on this level, and Polish people make far less of an impact than do Asians or Africans. Also, economically, European immigrants do work their arses off and contribute to this society without seeking to change it to their old one, which is more than can be said for the idle, benefit-dependent refugees from the third world who would sooner murder their own family-members than countenance them having relationships with the natives.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

I agree that Miliband's apology is worthless and contrived but the author goes quite a bit further than he did.

Passer by said...

"I don't even dislike European immigration, in fact the more the better; those million eastern Europeans living in Britain at least will postpone the day that the third-worlders will take over."

Milliband attacking eastern european immigration could be more sinister than you think. One of the ways to fix the problem is to stop afro/asian immigration while allowing european immigration. A Labour Government would probably crack down on european immigration while allowing non-european immigration to continue, therefore scoring points among the anti-immigrant electorate but ultimately making things worse.

Vince said...

I don't normally post here but do on gov. I have a mixed heritage which includes predominately European ie English, Irish, Danish, german, American (in essence European) and finally small percentage of Arab (Muslim) descent. Despite all these influences I have grown up considering myself English (not British) but English.

I grew up with a mixed group of friends including blacks,
mixed race, some Muslims, as well as Irish and of course English lads. Because we all grew up in an area that (was) 96% White all ethnics grew up educated and respectful citizens. In small numbers any race or culture can integrate into a society. It could have worked IF it was done in the right way. The problem was labour simply opened the door.

Either way we can't turn back the clock and can only deal with what we've got. Firstly mass immigration on any front for economic migrants is wrong regardless of race or culture. The poles have largely displaced the established working class in this country. If for example we were flooded with 500,000 accountants from Sweden willing to work for less money than their English counter parts, then economics dictates that the majority of the latter would lose their jobs.

However on a cultural level the simple fact is the children of these poles will be Brits. The only noticeable difference will be there surnames. If we look at the waves of say Italian immigrants that came from the 18th century onwards. Were are their entrenched ghettos? Were are the pockets of Immigrants who only speak Italian? The plain and simple fact is an immigrant from a European background and appearance will melt into the population with greater ease than a third worlder.

The term "melt" in my opinion only works from intermarriage and when all traces of the immigrant past has been eradicated does one become indistinguishable from the native population, as in my own case. If we even look at our lord mayor boris Johnson, he has Russian, Jewish and Turkish Muslim ancestory. But we all know him as the eccentric wild blonde haired posh boy.

I think although we should not welcome mass immigration of anykind, I feel their can at least be some positive from mass immigration from some eastern europeans, I'm thinking specifically poles as my experience from the Romanian gypsies and their Blood sucking ways has been far from pleasant. However mass immigration from the third world particularly Africa, middle east and Asia can only be seen as negative.

Now I'm not saying small numbers of doctors, or bioengineers from these countries is a bad thing, but their still will be a cultural barrier, which may not cause problems with them but three or four generations down the line, as we have witnessed from the ghettos of bradford and tower hamlets. Fourth generation pakistanis calling for shariah law.......

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

I don't accept we can't turn back the clock. In the case of Muslims, we need to turn back the block or we will face civil war.

The possibility of expelling millions of people from the country may seem extraordinary to you. But so must a civil war. One of those two extraordinary things is going to happen. See this post on Muslim repatriation for thoughts on how it could be done.

There are many examples in history of mass population exchanges that have often had the effect of defusing ethnic tensions. Take the French colony of Algeria for example. It was considered an integral part of France. There were 1.5 European colonists living there who had put down deep emotional roots and formed a profound attachment to the place. To them, the idea of leaving it initially seemed inconceivable. But in the end, they had to.

Many were emotionally traumatised by the experience and never really recovered. No doubt it will be the same when we send the Muslims home. But that's how it has to be.

Vince said...

Would also like to elaborate on the term "melt". For example three immigrants arrive in the 1960s one german, one Pakistani and one jamaican. Fast forward to present day. I may be stereotypical here but I would expect the descendant of the german to be a Brit, perhaps not even knowing of his non English ancestory. I would imagine the descendent of the Pakistani, to still largely be Pakistani, in appearance,heart soul and mind. Continual arranged marriages from outside the I'm reinforces that particular culture,religion etc. I would imagine the descendent of the Jamaican to still be either black or mixed race appearance at best, perhaps adopting a particular inner city subculture at best also.

However assume all three descendants are upstanding citizens. The honest truth Is on the census a.) would identify as White British b.) British Asian and c.) black British. Even with integration the descendants of the latter two would still be classified as something other than a native even if candidate a's descendent Is not truly a Brit either.

If we look at the USA for example how often do you here Dutch American? German American? English American? Scottish American? Polish American? Compare that to how often you hear african American, Arab American, or even separate entities altogether such as "latino" "hispanic" or "Asian". I feel I prove my point if it were not for the european exception of "Italian American".

But either way i think I've highlighted my point

Vince said...

I just wrote possibly one of the best pieces I've ever written. The character limit and my iPhone unfortunately ruined my response. Pretty gutted. Oh well. It was not an answer you were expecting. But in short. I will basically state, whatever the end result will be it's happening whether we like it or not. Us mere mortals can only play our part. And for the record regardless of it's effectiveness I do not agree with repatriation. What would be interesting to know however is your repatriation beliefs on ex Muslims. Or those willing to renounce it

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

I have no problem with ex-Muslims, provided they really are ex-Muslims. But remember the example of Spain. At one point the Spanish monarchs told the Muslims there to convert or leave. Some stayed, claiming to have converted to Christianity. These were the Moriscos. Then, decades later, when Spain was at war with the Muslim Turks, the Moriscos staged an uprising against the Spanish king. In the end, they had to be expelled completely. The Islamic doctrines of deceit were developed, in part, to deal with circumstances like this. So you can never really trust a Muslim.

Even apart from the sincerity of their apparent conversion, though, genetic dissimilitude imposes social stresses of its own. As you note yourself, however, it's largely a question of numbers. I have no problem with small numbers of genetic aliens willing to integrate. But turning a country into a zoo with no dominant genetic core group is a recipe for endless strife and, ultimately, civil war.

Anonymous said...

We cant turn the clock back? If we cant then look forward to a civil war that will make Bosnia look like a garden party.

So for the good of all, lets hope we can turn the clock back, or else the clock, along with all the other fixtures of the UK, will be smashed.

There is going to be blood on the streets. Thank God for the EDL, If it weren't for them the situation would continue to increase the pressure in the boiler till it blew. Because of the EDL and its increasing public prominence, the numbskull politicians have been forced to
take notice.

But even now, they are hoping to integrate people who are not just incapable of integrating, but their religion requires them not to integrate but to seize the nation.

As for the traitorous Labour party. Normal punishments for treason are inadequate for what they have done. There should be a special pace in hell, say the eighth circle, reserved for these scum.

Anonymous said...

Vince wrote: I would expect the descendant of the german to be a Brit, perhaps not even knowing of his non English ancestry.

Oh I'm certain, given the thoroughness of the German mind, he would know of his German ancestry. But that would make no difference to his allegiance, as he would also know that the "local" Brits themselves were of north German ancestry. As far as he was concerned, racially and culturewise( language, religion (Protestant Christian), music) there was no difference.

But guess what. Our politicians tried to pretend that the public was really concerned about European immigration rather then the alien cultures of Africa and Asia.

In reality, politicians were the ones who were being racist, while the common man was pointing out not to race, but the alien culture that was being imported, that could not and would not integrate.

Anonymous said...

As for the Times.

They are now hiding behind a paywall. But they must also know that once the truth came out, they would be castigated no end for colluding the ruling elite in deceiving the public.

The Times, that great thunderer, now hides behind a paywall, not for financial reasons, but afraid of the arse kicking they would get.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, oh dear.

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews