If a Conservative In Name Only such as London Mayor Boris Johnson wants to win favourable plaudits from the BBC, what better way than to suggest that the 400,000 illegal immigrants that live in London be granted an amnesty and allowed to stay? The BBC believes, as an article of faith, that all immigration is a good thing and so those in political life who cheer-lead for the law-breakers who slither into our country get favourable Beeb coverage. I note no-one is allowed to attack Boris for this latest proposed abrogation of the rule of law in favour of winning future votes.
LONDON CALLING.
Bookmark the permalink.
Nice one, Boris… I suggest everyone stops abiding by the law then. What’s wrong with these people?
Now that the Conservative party are bedecked in the gaudy trinkets of cultural suicide, from mass immigration to multiculturalism and the destruction of the family unit, who will stand up for us now? Will the British Broadcasting Corporation?
Nothing can be done bout it. Open borders, liebore let them in and wont remove them.
They will just work here anyway, mostly under Spliff in the home office.
Labours fault.
The BBC and Boris Johnson need to read ‘Migrationwatch’s document: ‘Balanced Migration’, and the section on Illegal Immigration and Amnesties:
[Extract]:
‘Illegal immigration: an unknown quantity’
“It is, by definition, impossible to know precisely the number of people illegally
present in Britain. A paper commissioned by the Home Office and published in June
2005 contained a central estimate of 430,000. The true figure for illegal
immigration could be anywhere between half a million and one million…”
“There are several very serious objections to an amnesty for illegal immigrants:-
a) It would be completely ineffective since those who were regularised would soon be
replaced by others from countries where the wage rates are far lower than in the
UK. This has been the actual experience of Italy (which has granted five amnesties)
and Spain (which has granted six) in the past 20 years; on almost every occasion
there were even more applications than for the previous amnesty. This suggests that
amnesties increase, rather than decrease, illegal immigration.
b)It would be extremely expensive. The net cost would be £1 billion a year• but it
could be much higher; the truth is that nobody knows how many would claim to
be eligible.
c) Any such programme would be extremely difficult to administer since, by
definition, there would be no documents to prove when the applicant arrived and
whether his residence had been continuous.
d) Those granted an amnesty would be immediately entitled to apply for social
housing, adding half a million to the waiting list (which is already over 1.5 million
for England alone). They would also be entitled to bring over their families, thus
moving up the queue which is largely based on ‘need’.
e) It is wrong, in principle, to reward illegal behaviour with a lifetime’s access to the
welfare state. The presence of illegal immigrants holds down the wages of low skilled
British workers and enables unscrupulous employers to compete unfairly with
honest ones who pay the full minimum wage.”
(‘Migrationwatch’ “Balanced Migration” p.18.)
Click to access balancedmigration.pdf
Immigration benefits the free market and helps businesses.
You’d be hard pushed to find an employer who is against immigration.
Boris’ stance is conservative as it favours the free market.
It’s nihilist since it destroys the rule of law. To Traitor’s Gate with him!!
I have posted this elsewhere but I think it’s also relevant here. Some of the problems with amnesty are:
First problem. If people entered the country illegally and unseen, how do they prove they have been here for the required number of years?
Second problem. Amnesties encourage further immigration since they offer a way to citizenship.
How do you get 700,000 illegal immigrants to leave the country? Simple. You get them to deport themselves voluntarily. You do this by ensuring that they cannot get employment or benefits.
If you simplify the ID card so that it only identifies and does not include personal data (which is the expensive and difficult part of the scheme) then you can check all companies for illegal immigrants and, if the fines are pitched steeply enough, none will be employed.
No job, no benefits: they will soon go elsewhere.
I wonder if Boris can see a media narrative of immigrants leaving London on the horizon, ie. losing faith in the economy as the economy no longer supports them. Maybe this is just intended to encourage them to hang around when times are rough so as not to ruin London’s good time image?
Zevilyn – Conservatism (with our without a capital C) is about a great deal more than the free market.
Boris Johnson, as David Vance, observes, is a CINO.
It seems only the market or the economy seems to matter when it comes to immigration.
If immigrants, particularly Muslims become numerous enough, then the cultural and historic identity of Britain will be destroyed for good. Whether immigrants are a net contribution to the economy or not, is not the burning question.
http://nickreynoldsatwork.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/my-friends-at-biased-bbc/
what a gent!I think he likes us
Nick Reynolds said: “John Reith” is the pseudonym of a BBC journalist who regularly comments. He does fantastic work, debating and rebutting, with humour and occasionally acerbic comment.
Well Reynolds hasn’t lost his sense of humour at least, ‘Reith’ debating – what a dick!
Reith was a one trick pony – all he could do was snipe on single issues.
Probably educated by Jesuits.
Well, it was leaked during this last week that immigrants bring virtually no benefit to Britain. This means that illegal immigrants must be a negative in every sense: as in depressing wages; the population seeing illegal behaviour rewarded; our schools and hospitals dealing with non-paying illegal “immigrants”.
Boris Johnson, in his majestic cocoon of self, ought to be told that amnesties encourage more illegal immigrants. The United States went down that route, hoping to placate the self-promoting demonstrators, and found that amnesty proved very popular with aspirant illegal immigrants. More came pouring in, demanding amnesty.
This idea that people illegally breaching national borders should be rewarded was, if I recall correctly, started by international moron Jimmy Carter who “welcomed the Cuban boat people with open arms and open hearts”.
Well. There was a message that caught on fast.
“Illegal” means “broke the law of the land”. Meditate on it, Boris. If illegal immigrants can break the law and be rewarded, why should rapists not expect to be similarily excused? And people engaged incorporate fraud? And, indeed, tax evaders? If the law’s not secure one thing, it’s not secure against anything.
A start to repel illegal immigration is not amnesty, but the certainty of being shipped back, having wasted their money in coming to Britain in the first place. And no help in any form from the British taxpayer. That includes medical.
DP111 – Britain is already destroyed.
Immigration laws are immoral. Before 1914 Britain didnt even require passports. Huzzah for Boris.
Though electorally, is this a good move? The immigrant areas tend to not vote tory.
Reynolds is typical patronising beeber.
Hope we get the thing shut down
No chance now of Boris becoming Tory leader.
Even if all the illegals were made legal and given the vote they would not vote for Boris or Tory they would vote for Labour, Especially the Muslims who know Brown is scared of them and will appease them by slowly surrendering to sharia law.
“One cannot gain by ones own default”
The above used to be a frequently quoted legal principle.
Not any longer for some reason!
It should be applied strictly to illegals so that none of them can acquire residence rights.
I’m sure it’s just a balloon at no cost to triangulate Labour – Bojo’s taking one for the team perhaps.
Verity:
I’ve just had a brilliant idea!!! How about an amnesty for those who refuse to pay their BBC TV license tax?
Completely O/T but i’ve just watched the national weather forecast which contradicted the local one – bit odd!
From frankos’s link to the blog of the standard-setting BBC journalist, Nick Reynolds:
But there’s a lot to be learned from its’ rise, and perhaps its’ fall.
The Apostrophe Protection Society has been notified.
This morning, Sky News reported that Hazel Blears is concerned that refusing to listen to the white, working class is benefiting the BNP.
Admittedly she’s more concerned about stopping the BNP than helping the working class, but she’s showing a better understanding of the situation that Boris, who doesn’t seem to understand the cultural impact.
I’m no defender of illegal immigration, but if you look at what BJ actually said it involves a team of economists coming to a recommendation on economic grounds. The morality or otherwise will hopefully be omitted from a purely rational decision based of objective facts
It’s notable that whenever immigration is discussed, only the economic benefit or costs are discussed. But the social and environmental costs are very neatly forgotten and ignored. Both are huge, and in my opinion, far outweigh the economic benefits (if there are any) of immigration.
Immigrants tend to work in low paid jobs. They also tend to have lots of children. They are usually net benefits from welfare. Ergo, many take more than they put into the pot, especially when you add in school costs for their children and the health and housing services they benefit from. Of course, this argument cannot be levied at any immigrants working in the city or as doctors, but they are not the issue.
Social costs: cultural tensions; non-English language skills; crime; lack of housing;
Environmental costs: increased population leads to overcrowded public transport; over congestion on roads; increased emissions of local air quality pollutants, increased use of electricity (therefore CO2 emissions); need for more housing – build on greenfield sites.
There are probably more costs to factor in, but none of these are ever really discussed when immigration comes up. Is immigration really an overall net benefit to this country? Lets see a TRUE cost benefit analysis.
ae1/DP111 – agree with you both. Down here in deepest Devon the Plymouth Herald has on the front page a local man currently on trial at the Old Bailey stating that integrating with the local muslim community was ‘the best thing that happened in his life’. This led him to the firm belief that he should set off a nail bomb in a restaurant in Exeter. He seriously injured himself but there is not much about it in the news, from you know who, that I have heard.
” I note no-one is allowed to attack Boris for this latest proposed abrogation of the rule of law in favour of winning future votes.”
“Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said the suggestion was “naive” and would lead to more trafficking of people. Mr Woolas said: ‘I think this is naive of the Mayor. His comments might start with the best of intentions but will lead to more people traffickers making more money and exploiting more vulnerable individuals.'”
“Migrationwatch UK said the proposal was “amazing” with a recession looming. Chairman Sir Andrew Green said: ‘An amnesty would also add hundreds of thousands to the housing lists.'”
The Economist | 22.11.08 – 11:39 am
Immigrants tend to work in low paid jobs. They also tend to have lots of children. They are usually net benefits from welfare. Ergo, many take more than they put into the pot, especially when you add in school costs for their children and the health and housing services they benefit from.
This may be tue of immigrants from Africa or Asia, but most immigrants in recent years have been from Eastern Europe.
East European migrant workers do not have many children (most have none at all). They hardly use the schools or the NHS (being mostly in their healthy twenties) and very few of them ever claim any kind of benefit or live in social housing.
Stani
The issue at hand is not the easten europeans, as they are all here legally – courtesy of the good ol’ EU. We can’t stop them moving here even if we wanted too. Just like they couldn’t stop us moving on mass to Poland if we so wished. Although I’m sure if we did the local Poles would be up in arms in no time.
And I think you forgot to mention, whilst what you describe is largely true regarding the Poles, the social costs they impose are much reduced relatively to non-EU immigrants, they still impose language costs on society – remember the Cambridge police service asking for more money to deal with non-english speaking people?
A significant problem about granting amnesties for significant breaches of the law is the effect it has on the great majority who, by and large, aim to respect and obey the law. It demoralises them, because there is no penalty for the law-breaker and no reward for those who observe it. In making the law arbitrary it also breeds contempt for the law itself, for those who make the law and those who seek to enforce it.
The Economist | 22.11.08 – 12:34 pm
remember the Cambridge police service asking for more money to deal with non-english speaking people?
Yes I remember. Typical try-on by a woman chief constable trying to get noticed in the media.
“Oooooh it’s so hard with all these Lithuanian drunk drivers.”
Every Lithuanian I know in London speaks much clearer, more grammatical English than any police officer I’ve so far encountered.
Sorry – that anon above was me Economist.
I’m sick of hearing about immigrants being ‘ good good for the economy’ why not perhaps not give them any money – ever- and make the spongers on benefits…… Work? Don’t imagine any labour or Tories will be spouting that policy..
And how come most of these immigrants from the enlightened area of the planet have such bad dress sense? it’s always beige coats, crap trousers and cheap plastic shoes. I’m sure they don’t have this type of makeover in the middle east for instance . Must be the French. Blame the bloody eu.
Of course, would-be immigrants are inclined to have a vested interest in the continuation of mass immigration into Britain.
As Paul Weston says here, in his essay on ‘Multiculturalism’:
” Mass immigration is undemocratic. A survey carried out in 1970’s Britain showed that 90% of the population was against mass immigration, which at the time was not quite as “mass” as it is now. Recent surveys, although no longer as high as 90% (a testament perhaps to the power of forty years incessant drip feed propaganda) still suggest that the majorities in Western countries are against further immigration, yet Western governments everywhere have disallowed a referendum on this important issue whilst increasingly flooding their countries with anti-Western, unassimilable immigrants.
“Race and minority status are relative. To be a Pakistani minority in Britain is all well and good, but there are one hundred and sixty million Pakistanis in Pakistan and therefore outnumber the British by one hundred million people. One cannot, in a reasonable world, come from such large a group and claim the ethnic spoils available by dint of minority status in a different country, simply because one chose to leave one’s country of origin. This argument holds equally for Africans and Muslim Arabs.”
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/british_renaissance/blog/2007/05/28/multiculturalism__merits__debits
The Economist 12:34 pm “….they still impose language costs on society – remember the Cambridge police service asking for more money to deal with non-english speaking people?
And don’t forget the cost of ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) classes. These are very well funded as far as I can see and the fee paid by pupils is only nominal.
—–
Stani 12:21 pm “…but most immigrants in recent years have been from Eastern Europe.”
I don’t think that is correct. It’s just the conclusion we’ve been encouraged to draw from the publicity given to Polish immigrants.
Bojo, a hero to many who post here, has shown his true colours – at heart, he’s just another careerist politician – and a spineless liberal to boot. He knows the demographics. He wants to be re-elected, so he’s cosying up to ethnic minorities.
While it may or may not be politically astute for Bojo in London, the Tories would do well to remember they won’t get a Commons majority without white working class votes – Mondeo man, white van man etc. This insanity will cost them many white working class votes.
Another gift to the BNP.
From the linked BBC report:
Boris Johnson said deporting thousands of people working illegally in the UK was “just not going to happen”.
That’s correct, Boris. Just as the authorities did not pay their fares to get here, neither shall the authorities have to incur the costs of getting rid of them. They are illegal and, if properly refused state benefits and rogue employers are properly fined and jailed, then THEY WILL DEPORT THEMSELVES!
It’s strange how that rather obvious point is never heard nor seen in the communiques from the ruling clique and its propaganda tool.
From the linked BBC report:
Boris Johnson said deporting thousands of people working illegally in the UK was “just not going to happen”.
That’s correct, Boris. They are here illegally and, if properly refused state benefits and rogue employers are properly fined and jailed, then THEY WILL DEPORT THEMSELVES!
More – He acknowledged that illegal immigrants had broken the law and should “in principle” be deported, but he added: “Unfortunately it is just not going to happen.”
Why is it “not going to happen”? It’s because the ruling clique refuse to impose the law of the land. That is treasonable.
More – He told Channel 4 News that allowing long-term illegal immigrants to earn the right to stay would see “hugely increased” tax revenues.
Given the fact that there are already huge numbers of immigrants who, for reasons best known to the ruling clique, have been granted legal status, have there been “hugely increased” tax revenues? The evidence of the ruinous public sector borrowing requirement is that if there has been, the resultant expenditure greatly exceeds the revenues.
I can only conlude that Boris Johnson hasn’t got a clue – but at least he’s beginning to win the BBC’s approval.
How soon before Boris goes on the BBC and tells natural born Brits to leave the country in order to make room for those more needy?
I can see a BBC headline in a few years ‘white Europeans – are there too many?’
cameron:
I can see a BBC headline in a few years ‘white Europeans – are there too many?’
A few years? Aren’t these the BBC headlines everyday? Albeit between the lines.
Boris’s suggestion is alarming, but given that there are an estimated 700,000 (how do they know?) illegals here already that they can’t deal with, it might be tempting to wipe the slate clean. Apart from:
Ian Looker 22.11.08 – 12:35 pm
the effect it has on the great majority who, by and large, aim to respect and obey the law. It demoralises them, because there is no penalty for the law-breaker and no reward for those who observe it.
Absolutely.
Boris says (if you can believe anything on the BBC website)
“For instance, it might be necessary to have a clean criminal record. “
Might? Might?
Grant amnesties to criminal illegals as well as wiping out their illegality?
It’s like the proposal to ban driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. So, currently it’s okay to drive while a bit high on drugs or a bit pissed on booze? – you can use illegal drugs if they’re just for driving?
“These are just for use while driving, occifer” “Okay, keep moving or you’re nicked”
That would sound better from Eddie Izzard. And probably it isn’t a bit like that after all.
When there’s a gun amnesty, you’re supposed to give in your gun.
It would be absurd to just grant an amnesty for guns. You may as well say we can’t deal with all this crime, so we’ll make it all legal.
All must have amnesties. Except Israel.
The cost of dealing with non-english speaking immigrants includes their right to demand a translator when in hospital. A doctor I know says they turn up at A&E with a printed note declaring that it is their right, and the hospital has to hire one. At an hourly rate. In Truro, that ethnically diverse metropolis.
Just how many of our liberal elite who are so in favour of immigration employ immigrants as their servants at very low wages? Virtually all immigration into Britain in the last two hundred years or so has been to keep the wages of the indigenous population down. The arguement that we need immigration because of a falling population is absolute rubbish. Japan has an age distribuation older than this country’s and has ZERO immigarion, with the result that Shinto is the only religion whose adherents are not the victims of Moslem terrorism.
Dagobert
The idea that ageing populations are bad because there aren’t enough young people to pay their pensions is often peddled as a reason for immigration. But this approach always begs a question. When the current crop of young people age, we’ll need ever more young people to cater for them. And then the next generation, an even greater number. Taking the argument to the extreme, by the 22nd century, the population will need to be at least 100 million plus just to feed the elderly based on this argument. Suggesting we need ever more immigration just doesn’t wash for me, for the aforementioned reasons as it’ll bring folly in the long run.
Its a bbc, left wing lie that we need Nigerian nurses or Polish plumbers.
British are not lazy, the ones who are are the benfits class which the left created and protects
If immigration,legal or otherwise, is so good for a country how come the luvvies at the BBC dont encourage it for Africa and other Third World countries ?. They need their economies to improve more than us
Forget the “liberal elite”, so long as big business is in favour of immigration, it will not be stopped. There’s too much money involved.
It may not economically benefit this country, but there’s little doubt that the depressing of wages increase the wealth of The City and big and small businesses immensely.
Just imagine how delighted they will be if the Tories abolishing the minimum wage is added to the massive influx of cheap labour.
zevilyn
“Just imagine how delighted they will be if the Tories abolishing the minimum wage is added to the massive influx of cheap labour.”
The tories havent got the balls to abolish the minimum wage,just like they havent even got the bottle to even ASK us wether we want the BBC,or wether we want to be part of the EU,or wether we want all these immigrants in our country.
I think that if they reflected peoples real views [the tories] the BBC would annihilate them, which is why they put up with so much shit from pravda BBC journos.
I feel like eating my own head at times with the complicity of it all.
I used to pay for this international gang of bastards at the BBC.
Ps – has raggy omar been shot or something,havent seen his glassy eyed news reports for a long time.
slim chance and GCooper,
I know many people here had problems arguing with John Reith, but I felt that I had some genuinely useful and informative debates with him.
He did tend to take a more sarcastic and abusive tone with others than with me, but he certainly took a lot of real abuse for a long time. He also did his homework when required, and sometimes even admitted bias when it was indefensible. That’s much more than I can say for Nick Reynolds’ occasional condescending drive-bys.