SO, EU IMMIGRANTS MAKE a £20 billion tax
contribution to the country. Nobody, least of all Ukip has ever tried to deny
an amount exists, and it does not need a study carried by two London based academics
to draw our attention to it. All it does is allow the liberal commentators to cheer
the findings, as proof of the benefits of EU immigration and the free movement
of peoples.
First
of all, as a Ukip voter; I do see the need for highly skilled and talented
immigrants, not only from Europe, but from the rest of the world. Ukip, and
those opposed to immigration outside of the BNP and the EDL, are not little
Englanders; they know we would be cutting our own throat as an economy if we
rejected such talent.
There
have been some 250,000 talented Frenchmen and women settling in London to evade
the socialist tax policies of president Hollande. I regard these as the modern
Huguenots, fleeing not Catholicism but socialism, and they should be welcomed
with open arms; as should others of their calibre from other countries.
What
I and Ukip protest about are the sheer weight of numbers being sent through our
open boarders from the EU, and the toll it is taking on this country's social
fabric. Words such as 'swamped' and phrases such as 'opening the floodgates'
have been used to describe what is happening. When I speak of immigration, I try
to always qualify it with the adjective mass.
Those
without skills (that account for the 'mass' in immigration) are dampening down
wages for the indigenous people of this country. They are putting pressure on
the NHS, our schools, and our housing. These are the three great elephants in
the room that the liberalista choose to ignore in any debate on immigration –
they blame, for instance, the longevity of the British people, on the failings
of the NHS, without hearing a squeak from them regarding the impact of
immigration.
We
hear, particularly from the Labour Party and their supporters, about the cost
of living crises which they blame on the Tories. But we do not hear from them
about the impact that immigration has on the cost of living. Most economists
believe that mass immigration has a tendency to drive down wages, and thus up
the cost living. When it comes to immigration, the NHS, education, and housing
rented or private…there is a bloody great herd of elephants squeezed tightly
into the room whenever the liberalarti hold forth in the media.
IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS report made the front page headline in both
the Guardian and the Independent (?). The report was limited
in its scope; partly restricted to EU migration, but even hear they used dates
to serve their purpose. It never mentioned, as today's Daily Mail points out, the fact that; "Three-quarters of the contribution –
£15 billion – was made by people born in the 15 members of the European Union
prior to the ‘big bang’ admittance of Eastern Bloc countries in 2004. It
includes huge sums paid in by the likes of French bankers and German engineers.
A
further £5billion came from the East Europeans. Recent non-European immigrants’
net contribution was also said to be positive, at about £5billion." Make of it what you will, but it falls far short of the headlines in
both the Guardian and Independent - £15 billion to be precise.
But, as the Daily Mail puts it;
"…buried inside the 51-page report was the calculation showing
that, if the time period 1995-2011 is considered instead, non-European migrants
living in Britain took out more than they put in for 17 consecutive years."
THE COST OF none European migration to our shores
over this period, according to the report was £120 billion over 17 years. The Daily Telegraph headline to this effect
today runs contrary to both the Guardian
and the Independent headlines. The liberal papers chose to emphasise the favourable (but highly
questionable) aspect of this deliberately ill-focused and intentionally
restricted view of immigration into the UK from the EU, as an afterthought for
the fact that immigration from outside of the EU has cost the British taxpayer
£120 billion over 17 years which was presented in the report but not, it seems
within the liberal media.
This report was
engineered within such limits that they (the authors) hoped would serve their
pro-EU migration purpose. But in order to accomplish it; they had to pick their
dates carefully to match favourable statistics; and when they could not do this
in the case of immigration from outside of the EU, they buried it in the 52
pages of their report, hoping, no doubt that it would not be gone over but
taken at face value as both the Guardian
and the Independent willingly did.
If it was not for
the Daily Telegraph, the headline emphasis on immigration from outside the EU
would never have had a mention, except as maybe a footnote in the liberal
press.
Mass immigration,
from whatever source it comes, must represent, on such a scale, a handicap to
the indigenous population of this country. They know it because, unlike some
ivory tower academic, they experience it. The white indigenous working class
population have their empirical knowledge, rather than academic statistics to
be informed by. Their every day experiences, which are foreign to academia, and
the London liberal elite from both politics and the arts, are all that matters.
Immigration has
to be regulated as it is in, for instance, Australia. We should attract the
brightest and the best in whatever sector of the economy they are needed, from
all parts of the globe. But unregulated immigration from an open EU market will
only cause social unrest; especially if it is coupled with migration from
without the EU.
The British
indigenous white population are not
racist. What they are, are ordinary people wishing to live among themselves,
like the people of India or Pakistan after they rid themselves of British
colonialism. We and not Europe should determine who are to live among us.
Europe says that all and sundry from within the EU should have the right to invade
our shore and be treated equally within the indigenous population.
They of course
have right on their side because of the various European treaties signed up to
by our various governments who told us they were, often or not, mere technical
arrangements which we should not be bothered about; and so we were not – it was,
after-all, a procedural device and needed no further input by the British people…and
the 'no further input' has extended itself to the need for an In/Out referendum
on Europe. We must allow our elected representatives, to consider what they
believe to be our best interest, just as in the Middle Ages the Divine Right of
Kings monopolised the will of the people; so in the case of Europe, we must
obey and trust in the wisdom of our politicians…I think not!
November 6th…an update
AFTER JUST 24 hours the report authored by Professor Christian
Dustmann, and Dr Tommaso Frattini is unravelling. First of all we learn that
University College London, from where they and the report emerged, has received
funding from the EU totalling £35million over the past decade. Secondly, we
find that professor Dustmann, (according to Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the
much respected Migration Watch) was
the very man who, when working as a lead researcher at the Home Office, wrote
that immigration from Eastern Europe would only total between 5,000 and 13,000
a year. As we now know, between 2004, when Tony Blair opened the floodgates,
and 2009, more than one million crossed
the channel.
But the most
damming of all arguments against this document, is that its scope was too
narrow and its statistics were based on dubious methods aimed at trying to
counter an anti-mass immigration lobby such as Ukip, as well as David Cameron's
attempt to steer the immigration debate toward welfare payments instead of numbers.
The Guardian and the Independent jumped on board without apparently questioning the
evidence or examining the perimeters of the evidence; or even University
College London's lucrative relationship with the bureaucrats of Brussels…and to
top it all, neither paper looked into Professor Dustmann's form on the topic of
predicting the numbers of east European migrants expected to turn up after Tony
Blair prematurely opened the floodgates; which Professor Dustmann predicted at
the time would amount to nothing more than a dripping tap.
Neither the Guardian or the Independent[1]
could wait to publish the two academic's findings. Politically speaking, the
papers editors must have read the report's conclusion about the £20 billion
contribution by EU immigrants and…kerching! At last, they believed, those
lefties like themselves who accepted as a truth that mass immigration produces
only advantages to society, were now vindicated by the report's findings.
Both papers
probably thought that they could now get back onto the front foot on this
issue. Two respected academics had finally proven that immigration was not only
beneficial, but a miraculous cure for the country's economic ills. But enthusiastic
naivety once more addled their thinking[2].
They seem not to have studied this report in terms of its scope on the complex
subject of immigration; or the objectivity of its authors; who, like themselves,
were pro-EU liberals.
My advice to
these newspapers is to listen more to the experiences of the indigenous
population outside of London, than rely upon academic studies regarding
immigration. If they cannot bring themselves to do that, then why should they expect
their headlines on the subject to be taken seriously outside of their small coterie
of like minded liberal metropolitans ensconced in London.
The subject of Immigration
has been ill-served by, not only this report, but by the accompanying headlines
in the liberal press and media in response to it. A desperate need to prove a
Ukip negative, drove these two liberal newspapers to support a false positive
from their point of view; and they did so, so vehemently on their front pages.
No comments:
Post a Comment