Another Anti-Immigration Myth Blown Out Of The Water

This was the Daily Express's frontpage on November 2nd 2007.



This myth has been circulated in our mainstream media for the last four years. There are more examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Oh and here:



It is total nonsense. The 'maths' to make this myth work is basically equivalent to saying 2 - 2 = 4.

Thankfully, Left Foot Forward has today brilliantly destroyed this argument by doing the same calculation with disabled people.They took 219% of all new jobs last year!

The Net Migration Trap

Fraser Nelson's analysis of the latest net migration statistics is generally sound:

He correctly identifies that "the inflow to Britain has stayed steady, but the number emigrating from Britain has fallen" (which many other journalists got wrong).

He also states that "Cameron has a snowballs's chance in hell of meeting his target" of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands. That's true too. The immigration reforms brought in by the Coalition will already be deeply damaging on both an economic and humanitarian level. But they don't go far enough to cut net migration to such a low level. ConservativeHome's Tim Montgomerie has spotted why: "At every turn the Lib Dems have frustrated Damian Green and Theresa May's efforts". I'm appalled by what has been done to the already horrid immigration system left by Labour, but I dread to think how awful it would get if the Tories weren't reined back by the Lib Dems.

However, some of Fraser Nelson's analysis raises more questions than it answers. He decides that "Cameron should only ever have pledged to stem the inflow". This is problematic though, in two ways.

First, it changes your motives for wanting reforms to the system. If you are worried about immigration because of the pressure it puts on public services, infrastructure, the number of jobs available to British workers, these are better dealt with by looking at net migration, as this tracks the change in population size. If you only want to cut immigration, it changes your agenda to the more cultural arguments against immigration. It would be hard to defend such a policy without sounding like Enoch Powell.

Second, the government can only control non-EU immigration. EU immigration, after a lull during the recession, is back to its mid-2000s strength. It could even be that reducing non-EU immigration causes EU immigration. Oops!

Fraser Nelson also uses this odd argument - "Governments of free countries can't stop people emigrating". Why is it a right for people to migrate in one direction but not the other? (Of course what's really happening is that the government is responding to voters' selfish demand that they can move freely whilst insisting other people can't. That's nothing to do with freedom.)

So it would appear the government is trapped by its own net migration target. They even had a golden opportunity to make life much easier for themselves when the Home Affairs Select Committee suggested removing foreign students from the immigration statistics (they are much more like visitors than migrants). The government rejected the offer. Talk about own goals! Fraser Nelson says that Cameron "deserves the flak he'll get". Quite.

But we are where we are. Labour's already tight immigration policy will be further tightened by this government. The reality is that migration is a natural part of an increasingly interconnected world. Our border controls are futile against this overwhelming force. There's evidence that the wasted human potential created by immigration controls is stopping a boost to global GDP of between 67% and 147%. That's $39 trillion at the bottom end. The global economy could really do with that boost right now.

How Tabloid Misinformation Makes Our Country Worse

Our understanding of the world comes from the media. Yet opinion polls that ask about how things are show the public are highly misinformed.

Here is a clear example of this effect:

Asked to estimate the proportion of foreign-born people living in the UK, the average guess is 29.4%. The true figure according to OECD data is 10.8%, lower than Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada and the USA.

How do the public become so misinformed about the scale of immigration?

Here is yesterday's Daily Mail frontpage:

Millions of people will have seen this frontpage headline. However, the numbers are simply untrue. The Office of National Statistics has started to explicitly tell reporters that it is incorrect to use their figures in this way, after countless instances of misreporting by the tabloid press. The Daily Mail deliberately ignored this warning.

This has been going on for many years, and a false perception is created. The government, keen to appease the negative feelings generated by this misinformation, therefore has to respond with promises to reduce net migration to below 100,000.

The consequences of their immigration clampdowns are numerous on both a human and economic level. The latest student visa restrictions will cost the economy around £2.4bn - money we can ill-afford to lose in these uncertain economic times. The family visa restrictions will mean the ability to live with a foreign partner with will depend on income - your wedding vows may have said "for richer or for poorer", but that will now legally not be the case for some.

I could have written a similar article on other issues, for instance law and order. The tabloids lie to us, the public demand action based on misinformation, and the government act on false perceptions rather than the reality.

Never mind the celebrity gossip - this is how the tabloids make our country worse. I welcome the demise of the News of the World, and hope the rest of the gutter press follows suit.

Creating Opportunities In The Homelands Of Economic Migrants

If ambitious people in underdeveloped countries have no opportunities in their native country, they'll migrate to developed countries. If developed countries want to reduce migration, erecting border controls is not enough. There will still be ambitious people are still driven to improve themselves, and they'll cross borders illegally if that's what it takes.

So developed countries need to work with underdeveloped countries to create the conditions that will remove the need for the ambitious to be economic migrants, and instead gives them a chance of self-improvement in their homeland.

Take a look at this TED talk which describes a model to create cities that could perform this very function:



Free movement without borders is an end in itself for me, but to achieve this as a long term goal, the large numbers who fear large-scale immigration need to have their concerns addressed. Meanwhile, the government will only reduce net migration if it engaging in schemes like this.

Tens of Thousands

Theresa May just confirmed at the despatch box that the Coalition's policy was to reduce net migration to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.

This was not in the Coalition Agreement. The agreement accepts that the government will "reduce the number of non-EU immigrants". But it was never agreed that the reduction would need to be as drastic as the Tories campaigned for during the election.

This matters because this target will shape multiple pieces of forthcoming legislation. The immigration cap today would not need to be so economically damaging, the cuts to student numbers would not need to be as harmful to our colleges and universities, and the restrictions to family visas (also not mentioned in the Agreement) would not need to be as brutal to those it will hurt.

Hansard shows Theresa May had previously set out this target as government policy in a statement on the 28th June.

Lib Dem Ministers must not let their Conservative colleagues stray from the specific terms set out in the Agreement. There are enough concessions in there already; don't give them any more.

Integrate You Bastards

Here's a quick Home Office video explaining yet another layer of bureaucracy that is being added to visa applications:



The government is coercively insisting that people are an integrated member of society, and that English is the only language that will enable someone to integrate.

There are plenty of other societies that muddle along just fine with multiple languages. Britain still has a few itself. When will the government start coercing Welsh to start speaking English?

But why stop at language? There's lots more the government could do to promote integration. Religion for a start. Those bloody immigrants most likely hit by this rule are likely to be from the Indian subcontinent, and therefore unlikely to be Christian - the national faith. So enforce compulsory church attendance for all who wish to enter. We do it for our state schools, so why not for our borders too? It'll mean less of those unsightly minarets, and the end of terrorism, because Christians are never terrorists.

Or perhaps the state should insist on patriotic tattoos to emblazoned across the torso. A small cartoon British bulldog would suffice, but extra points for an enormous dewy-eyed Winston Churchill waving the Union Flag on top of an implanted speaker that plays a monophonic rendition of "Land Of Hope And Glory" when firmly pressed.

Only for immigrants though. If you fluked being born here, that's British enough. Otherwise that would start affecting me, and that's just not on.

You may have spotted a tiny bit of exaggeration above. But the crux of it is this: if someone can't speak English, that's not your problem. You might not like hearing a foreign language for the three seconds when you and an immigrant share the same bit of pavement, but that's just tough. Lump it or chill out.

I'll leave you with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I can't see how this new rule will fit with this:

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Jobs for Workers

5 Live are reporting that 98% of new jobs in the private sector have gone to foreign-born workers since Labour came to power.

I find this an astonishing figure. I got my job after University in a new company, so it was certainly newly created. Am I really that exceptional?

But lets assume this figure is correct. Clearly the demand for employees are not being supplied by the British population. Immigration is crucial to business, and crucial for economic growth.

The Tories want to cap non-EU immigration. This would put our private sector in a straight jacket. An economy relies on people: people who want something, and people who can provide it. Restricting immigration - limiting people's ability to work - will always be detrimental to the economy, putting everyone's livelihoods at risk.

But opposition to immigration has never been about economics. It's about something much more sinister.

I Just Read a BBC Immigration Article...

(My thoughts are in green.)

Brown tells illegal migrants: "You are not welcome"

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stepped up his pre-election rhetoric on immigration by telling would-be illegal migrants: "You are not welcome." No shit Sherlock. (Of course he's addressing the electorate, not would-be illegal immigrants.)

With Labour facing a challenge in some areas from the anti-immigration BNP, Mr Brown urged a "united front" among the main parties to combat "xenophobia". You expect me to unite around your nasty, populist, xenophobic rhetoric? Fuck off. Talking tough on immigration doesn't combat xenophobia, it creates it. It plays to the BNP's agenda.

But he said it was right for politicians to talk about immigration and address people's "needs and fears". People need immigration and shouldn't fear it. Sorted.

The Tories said Mr Brown had "failed on immigration" and had no new ideas. The Tories haven't changed from their ideas in 2005.

In his third major speech on immigration (I thought you couldn't talk about immigration these days?) since becoming prime minister in 2007 Mr Brown said Labour's points-based migration system for workers from outside the EU would reduce the UK economy's dependence on migrant labour as British workers were trained up to meet skills shortages. It doesn't work like that… skills requirements fluctuate, but training is slow and costs money. Immigration allows for skills shortages to be filled quickly and cheaply, which is good for the economy.

But he also stressed the importance of addressing voters' concerns about the impact of immigration on their communities. If you don't like your community, move. Don't stop others from moving.

He highlighted recent tightening up of restrictions on newcomers and changes to housing rules to allow councils to favour local people and a new fund to help high-migration areas cope with the added pressure on public services, paid for by migrants. Migrants already pay their taxes and put in more than they take out.

'Fears' Oh piss off, BBC.

And he delivered a stark message to illegal migrants: "To those migrants who think they can get away without making a contribution; without respecting our way of life; without honouring the values that make Britain what it is - I have only one message - you are not welcome."Illegal immigrants are forced into this position by the government. They don't choose to be illegal, the government has made their circumstances illegal. They can't make a contribution because of their status.

Giving his reaction to Mr Brown's speech, Conservative leader David Cameron said: "I'm delighted that the prime minister has converted to the cause of controlled migration, but people will wonder what he has been doing for the last few years." He's been blurting out the same nasty rhetoric as usual throughout his premiership, David. Why haven't you been paying attention?

The Conservatives would broadly continue with Labour's points-based system, which sets criteria immigrants from outside the EU must meet to work in Britain, but would also set an annual cap on the number of work permits issued. i.e. discriminating based on application order. Huge human cost + cripples business.

They say they want to cut net immigration - the difference between those coming into the UK and those leaving - from "about 200,000" people a year to the "tens of thousands a year we saw in the 80s and 90s".

The Conservatives say they would achieve this by stopping students transferring automatically from study to work (this will mean breaking up relationships formed at university) and by capping the number of skilled workers admitted from outside the EU, although they would encourage more high value migrants such as entrepreneurs, doctors and scientists. How about letting the market decide who is of value? Blummin' Marxist Tories!

They would also introduce a border force to combat illegal immigration and English language test for the spouses of legal migrants. More breaking up of relationships. I thought the Tories were meant to be pro-marriage?

Shadow immigration minister Chris Grayling said: "We want to continue to attract the brightest and the best people to the UK - but with control on the overall numbers coming here."

'Amnesty' Nice work BBC. Plant the opposition's spin into the reader's mind before they get to the explanation. Cocks.

In his speech, Gordon Brown called the Tory capping plan a "pre-determined quota" which he said was "misleading" as it will not apply to 80% of migrants, including EU nationals, family members and students. Wow, something true! I think I'm going to faint!

The Liberal Democrats favour a policy of earned citizenship for illegal immigrants - dubbed an "amnesty" by their opponents. Much better than Labservative policy, but I don't like "earned".

They also say they would channel skilled migrant workers to parts of the country where there are labour shortages, away from the overcrowded South-East of England. Immigrants would channel themselves there if it wasn't for government interference.

Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said there was "more consensus than meets the eye" on immigration and that "after many years of chronic mismanagement Labour have now got their act together". Sigh. Could someone please remind Chris about the word Liberal in our party's name.

But he said a border force, with police powers, was needed and he called for the reintroduction of exit and entry checks.

The BNP (oh fuck here we go), which is seeking to win its first seats at Westminster at the general election, want an immediate end to all immigration to the UK, including from other EU countries, and a programme of "voluntary repatriation".

What? That's it? No criticism? Just regurgitate BNP immigration policy and move on? The BBC are dangerous imbeciles.

The UK Independence Party (I think I'm going to vomit) is also focusing on immigration in its election campaign. It is proposing a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement.

UKIP wants withdrawal from the EU, like the BNP, and would end the automatic right of EU citizens to live and work in the UK, replacing it with a work permit system.

Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP's MEPs, said Britain would have an "open door" to the rest of Europe "while we are a member of the European Union". (which has been universally positive for almost everyone)

"This is the great thing that the Labour and Conservative parties don't want the voters to know," he told the BBC News Channel.

...And once again, no criticism for UKIP. I despair.

Shortage

*Ahem* you covered the BNP and UKIP's immigration policy... so are they the only minor parties? Aren't you forgetting the Greens? Liberal BBC bias my arse.

In his speech, Mr Brown sought to differentiate between the position of parties such as the BNP and UKIP and "mainstream parties" who he said share a consensus that immigration is a positive force in British society and a necessary contributor to economic growth. So stop limiting it!

But he told the audience "how we conduct this debate is as important as the debate itself". Agreed. For instance, it is important that immigrants aren't blamed for things that aren't their fault...

And he called on mainstream parties to unite against "those who want to end immigration not because of the pressures it places on our communities (...like that! That's the government's fault, not immigrants') but simply because they don't like migrants".

Mr Brown announced changes to the points system, which will see two occupations - care workers and chefs - on the shortage list removed.

An aide said this would only reduce numbers entering the UK from outside the EU by about 2,500 and would not come fully into effect until 2014.

Mr Brown said he wanted to encourage young British people to take up social care and catering as careers to reduce the need to employ people from outside the EU. There's no way of doing this without it costing money.

Banonkers

On the Today programme, Phil Woolas described right-wing opposition to Labour's oppressive immigration controls as "banonkers". It most certainly is both bananas and bonkers to want to impose even harsher controls on immigrants, but the portmanteau did make me smile.

This latest attack on Labour is ridiculous. The charge is that immigration policy was chosen to deliberately encourage an influx of immigration to manipulate Britain into a multicultural society.

An open-borders encourages nothing. People are free to choose whether they are coming or going. If an immigrant wants to come here then that's up to them, not the government. Perhaps a multicultural society is inevitable with an open-borders policy. But that is society finding its own form without government sticking its beak in. Indeed, it is the people who wish to restrict immigration who expect the government to deliberately manipulate society for their own ends.

Anyway, in tribute to this awesome new word to describe the nationalists, xenophobes, bigots and racists who want to persecute people for their own convenience, I've done a little mash-up. Enjoy!

Racism within the UK Border Agency

It's not racist to impose limits on immigration. Shame then that it appears there is a culture of racism within the body which imposes limits on immigration.

I of course don't use the term 'racist' lightly.

A whistleblower has revealed to the Guardian her experience of working at the UK Border Agency in Cardiff.

The whistleblower claims:

• UKBA staff kept a toy gorilla that was placed as a badge of shame on the desk of any officer who approved an asylum application
• An official tested the claims of boys from African countries who said they had been forcibly conscripted as child soldiers by making them lie down on the floor and demonstrate how they shot at people in the bush.
• The authenticity of an asylum seeker claiming to be from North Korea was determined by the UKBA asking whether they chop suey
• If an asylum case was difficult, the UKBA's advice was simply to refuse it and "let a tribunal sort it out".
• A UKBA manager is quoted as saying "If it was up to me I'd take them all outside and shoot them" regarding their asylum seeker clients.
• When asked about the case of a Congolese woman, a member of the UKBA legal department said "Umbongo, umbongo, they kill them in the Congo."

Like I said, racist.

The chairman home affairs select committee, Keith Vaz, acknowledges the "culture of disbelief and discrimination" within the UK Border Agency. Vaz also said that "a number of ex-UKBA workers who have spoken out", so this whistleblower is not alone.

Whilst searching for comments regarding this report, I came across Twitterererer @benjimmin who works for the UKBA - I presume in Manchester, as listed in his Twitter profile. He kindly replied to me asking for his reaction to the claims made by the whistleblower: "I've never seen behaviour like that. I think I'd leave on the spot if I did." I sincerely hope this reportedly racist culture is limited to this one branch in Cardiff.

Merry Christmas from the UK Border Agency

What Matters More? (Updated)

Here are a selection of today's stories from the Politics section of the BBC News website, and a quick reaction to them.

Elizabeth Truss has won the battle to remain as the Conservative PPC in South West Norfolk. But it doesn't matter.

Nick Clegg and now David Cameron have come out against the Queen's Speech, saying it will be an irrelevant Government puff-piece, with Clegg going as far as calling for the whole thing to be scrapped. I blurted about this yesterday. But it doesn't matter.

Vince Cable has suggested that until they are broken up, the banks should be taxed an extra 10% on their profits, given the amount of money they have been given in bail-outs. But it doesn't matter.

A Labour council candidate has apologised for calling the Queen a "parasite" and "vermin". But guess what? It doesn't matter.

Not when you hear this.

According to Private Eye, reproduced by Byrne Tofferings and Football Forum, Alan Johnson has deported an asylum seeker, knowing that doing so would put this person's life in danger. How did he know? Because before his ascension to the Home Office, he was campaigning to stop this man from being deported.

Obviously the hypocrisy is mind-blowing. But frankly, that is the least of Johnson's sins. He has deliberately put this man's life in jeopardy. If he comes to any harm, his blood is on Johnson's hands. And for what? The only reason I can think of is to lower the government's statistics on granting asylum by one. Why else?

This matters so much more than the current political news I listed above. The decision was directly a matter of potential life or death. And it was done in our name. Alan Johnson must explain his actions.

I have been trying to get a prominent Labourite Twitterers to respond to this, but it has been like trying to squeeze semen from a brick. So I encourage you to try asking KerryMP, BevaniteElie, ChrispLOL and BristolRed how they feel about a Labour Home Secretary making this decision.

UPDATE I: KerryMP and BristolRed have kindly replied. They are both saying they can't judge without more information. I covered exactly the same point yesterday regarding Paul Clarke's outrageous gun possession conviction. We might not know everything yet, but everything we do know looks deeply troubling, and no-one has come up with anything that shows us a more complex picture. Until Alan Johnson defends his behaviour, there is a dark stain on his reputation.

UPDATE II: Thomas Byrne has tweeted that The Independent on Sunday's John Rentoul is looking further into this. Good.

UPDATE III: Bevanite Ellie also replied. See Update I.

Social Engineering, You Say?

Andrew Neather's comments in the Evening Standard on Friday have unsurprisingly been wildly distorted by the right-wing press. Neather responded today to counteract the distortions.

I would like to look at how they chose to misrepresent Neather. There are two lines of attack:

1. Labour chose an open-borders policy to engineer a more multicultural society.
   
2. They did this as part of a cynical attempt to expose the Tories as xenophobes.

The 2nd point is reasonable enough. No policy should be enacted simply as a part of one-upmanship. (Neather's response insists that this "wasn't the main point at issue".)

But the 1st point is nonsense. Social engineering is the government attempting to intervene by influencing or setting limits on people's behaviour, for what it sees as 'good for society'. Social engineering is the antithesis of social liberalism.

'Open borders' is a socially liberal policy that is free from government intervention. It is placing restrictions on immigration that is social engineering; exactly the opposite of what the right-wing press were purporting.

UK Border Atrocity

The UKBA has begun the scientifically flawed, blatantly racist DNA profiling of asylum seekers to determine their ethnicity *ahem* 'nationality'.

73% of children held at UKBA detention centres are developing mental health issues during their captivity. (More than half of these children won't even be deported).

The UKBA is adding extra inconvenience for those claiming asylum by requiring them to attend in person to submit information, and those who can't make their asylum claims during port entry will need to travel to Croydon to make their claim.

Anyway, back to life in civilised society.

Panorama "Migrants: Go Home!"

Last night's Panorama looked at the route taken by African migrants and asylum seekers into Europe and the UK. It followed the "chain" of movement through Libya, Italy and France that is being "pushed" back by the authorities. Along the route, migrants experience highly dangerous transportation, cramped, squalid living conditions and political oppression, simply for having the will to move away from violence and extreme poverty.

Phil Woolas justifies these actions as the means to drying up the market exploited by human traffickers:

We call it pushing a chain. It's very difficult to push a chain, but we're trying to push a chain back down the route so that when the people traffickers say 'come this way, you economic migrants, come this way to France or to Germany or Sweden or Britain', we can show that the route is closed.

However without the border controls that produce such stringent limitations on people's ability to move, the traffickers would have no market to exploit. Immigration controls are basically the prohibition of movement, and like all forms of prohibition, it creates far more problems than it solves.

I also can't ignore the Woolas's horrid term "you economic migrants". This is the sort of 'us and them' language that sows the seeds of division and derision.

In particular, anyone who has seen District 9 should watch the show (and anyone who hasn't seen it should; I refer you to Charlotte Gore's spot-on review). The stark similarities between the themes of the film and the documentary show that the film was not just about South African apartheid but also about the way that brutal way humans treat anyone seen as outsiders.



(Handy BBC iPlayer embed code from http://upyourego.com/pip/)

Criminal Love

HEALTH WARNING!
THIS POST CONTAINS CHEESY IMAGERY, MUSHY SENTIMENTALITY, AND MEATLOAF.
IT SHOULD NOT BE READ BY THOSE OF A HEARTLESS DISPOSITION.

Baroness Scotland's "illegal" immigrant cleaner Loloahi Tapui and her British husband Alexander Zivancevic have unsurprisingly been arrested on suspicion of immigration offences. Baroness Scotland has been hoisted by her own petard; excellent karma. But I have a great deal of sympathy for Loloahi and Alexander.

The Daily Mail uncovered details of the couple's background last week. In summary, Loloahi arrived in the UK on a student visa, remained in the UK after it had expired, managed to marry in a C of E church, gained a marriage certificate and therefore could appear to be a British citizen and gain employment.

Put yourself in the shoes of Loloahi. She (completely legally) spent a year in the UK. During that time she would have been an active member of society. She met loads of new people, become friends with some, and entered a relationship and fell in love with one of her acquaintances. Similarly, Alexander also met and fell in love with her. Completely normal behaviour, and surely a very positive thing to happen in their lives.

The year passes by and her visa expires. We don't know if she attempted to renew her visa and failed, or if she suspected that trying to extend her right to remain in the UK would be futile. But she wanted to stay with the man she loved.

Yes, I know, it sounds like the plot of a corny love story. But in stories where a couple's love overcomes the forces that are pulling them apart, we always root for love; it is part of being human. So we should all be rooting for Loloahi and Alexander.

This case is certainly not a one-off. A friend of mine has needed to jump through hoops in order to keep his foreign-born girlfriend (now his wife) in the country. It has cost them thousands of pounds, countless hours of bureaucracy, being questioned as if they were suspects of a crime, and they've needed to bend a few rules. But I know they don't regret it for a second as it meant being able to stay together. They were lucky that they could manage to keep together without breaking any laws, but those who aren't so lucky won't give up and will break the law. As Meatloaf sang, "I would do anything for love, but I won't do that". Perhaps 'that' means not flouting a country's immigration laws... although it does seem trivial compared to running to hell and back.

'Tough' clamp-downs on immigrants are meant to benefit British citizens. But not only do deportations have a terrible impact on the migrant's life, it also means tearing apart relationships formed with British people.

So looking back at Loloahi. She has hurt no-one. She was working and wasn't costing the taxpayer a penny. She has brought love to a British citizen. Why would anyone want to see her deported? I have no idea.

Immigrants and Granting Citizenship

So once again the odious Phil Woolas has been blowing his twat-whistle with more tough on immigrants rhetoric. The plan is to require immigrants to accumulate points in order to gain British citizenship. Cultural activities such as voluntary work, political activism, and learning English, as well as economic factors such as earning potential, skills and qualifications, would earn points that would decide whether or not the person was worthy of a hallowed British passport.

Like all of Labour's restrictions of immigration, I am fundamentally opposed to this highly immoral move. Expecting one group of people to pass tests, gather points and take oaths to gain something, whilst giving it to another group without these restrictions, is discrimination. This particular discrimination is imposed on the basis of nationality, but it would be just as bad if it was imposed based on any other circumstance of birth.

While it is not racist, this is a technicality. It is just as immoral as racism.

Personally I can't see how any restrictions can be placed on immigration without being discriminatory. However, a policy of unrestricted immigration has consequences that must be addressed. As Milton Friedman said:

You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.

This is clearly a problem for people who aren't right-wing fundamentalists and see a need for a public sector that provides services and welfare. Do we restrict immigration, or do we abolish welfare? Neither of these options appeals to me.

Devil's Kitchen suggests this compromise which I find highly attractive:

no immigrant may claim benefits until they have been working—and contributing tax (i.e. cash in hand work will not count)—for four years.

But wait! The EU will not let us treat EU citizens any differently to British citizens. Great! The same thing applies across the board, for British citizens too.

In the comments, DK makes it clear that this isn't something that he finds ideal, and anyone acquainted with his views will know he advocates the abolition in the welfare state, as well as some restrictions to people's movement.

But for me, this idea ticks all the boxes: it gives people the freedom of movement, it allows for the fair provision of public services and welfare, and it treats all people equally.

This idea would mean there are effectively two tiers of British citizenship:

"Basic" citizenship, open to everyone, that gives the person the right to live work and trade in the UK, and protection from A&E, criminal justice and security services.

and

"Full" citizenship, giving access to free education, healthcare, and welfare. We may also decide that police or armed services officers may need to be full citizens in order to take up their post. Whether full status is gained based on time spent in the county, the amount of taxes contributed, or the cultural criteria put forward by Mr Woolas today, is debatable. I think I would prefer DK's suggestion as it there is a closer link towards what you give (taxes) and what you receive (benefits and public services paid for by taxes).

There is a need to provide welfare to people, and therefore a need to register people as citizens, this does not mean that immigration must be restricted. Without free immigration, people will remain shackled to their location of birth, which condemns many people to inescapable poverty and abuse. With some simple creativity about how we manage citizenship, we can address the economic concerns that hang over immigration, exposing those who seek restrictions based on their selfish or racist interests.

Immigration is Not About Economics

Foreword: This is the second time of writing, and in my head it is crap compared to my first go. Note to all: Do not use iGoogle's Blogger gadget to write posts. Grrrrrr. Now how the fuck did I start?!

So the government is now forced to back down over the right for Gurkhas to settle in the UK. People of all political colours meant the government were always onto a loser. Nick Clegg's catchphrase "people who were prepared to die for this country should be allowed to live in this country" summed up the moral position that was taken by the pro-Gurkha-immigrants. The argument about cost lost. So why doesn't this happen over the wider debate over immigration?

The debate over immigration is usually framed in terms of economics. How much will a person benefit the UK? What skills will they bring? How much may it cost the taxpayer? It allows the discussion to be objective, so in these terms a conclusion can always be drawn about an amount that immigration needs to be limited. The debate often sounds like a board meeting about the number of widgets that are needed to ensure the optimum running of a business. Human beings are not widgets.

Lets widgetise the debate over the Gurkhas. The government's proposals allowed for 4,300 widgets, but the Widget Justice Campaign argued it would only allow for 100. But the government said up to 100,000 widgets would need to be allocated for if they had their way, costing £1.5bn, a figure disputed by Joanna Lumley (who I have more than forgiven for her appalling Scottish accent in Lewis on Easter Sunday).

If this wasn't about human beings, the government's case sounds quite reasonable. But it is the moral case that has won the day. Now in this case the campaign was supported by nationalists who felt Gurkhas had earned their right to live in this ONCE PROUD NATION! But again when you start talking about earning the right, the gate is left wide open for inhumane quantifying.

So whenever a big fuss is kicked off about how much immigration can be allowed, can we please remember we are talking about the lives of human beings. Please thankyou cheers.

Gurkhas: What were the the government thinking?

The government were today rightly defeated on their plans to limit the number of Gurkhas who would be allowed to live in Britain, the country they have a long history of fighting for. The Lib Dem motion to allow all Gurkhas to settle here was passed with a majority of 21 after support by the Conservatives and a few Labour backbenchers with some backbone. But how on earth did it get to this point? What were the government thinking? There are two posibilidades:

Uno: The government genuinely thought it was the principled thing to do.
Dos: They thought they were choosing the populist option.

I find it hard to make a case for Option Uno, firstly because I completely disagree, secondly because their arguments fell apart so easily during the Commons debate, and thirdly and most crucially because their view was so isolated. Not only did MPs of all colours come out against the government's position, but the whole gamut of newspaper opinion and public opinion was also firmly against. The Daily Politics reported "not a single one [of the emails they received] support the current government restrictions".

But this creates a problem for Option Dos. If the government were going against the grain of opinion, can it be called populist? Well yes, it can if the government just misread the strength of anti-immigration sentiment. Immigration Tyrant Phil Woolas's populist hostility towards immigrantion has seeped deep into the core of government thought.

If you are going to do populism, you have to get it right. If you miss, you look both unprincipled and out-of-tune... a deadly combination. This Labour government deserve all of the stick they get for this pathetic attempt at playing politics with the livelihoods of people who have put their lives on the line for Britain.