Yesterday’s article in TCW by Lord Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK, ‘Immigration could make or break the Tories’, resulted in so many comments that we have chosen extracts from a selection.
Happy Hacker wrote:
The public realise fully that the horrid, cheap houses being flung up over farmland are the result of immigration. They also realise that the squeeze on public services and wages, ditto. And that a net is being pulled around us, dragging us into accepting this, and all the PC nonsense, meaning an end to anything our parents would have recognised as England, any chance of living in a style not dictated by Government, and any means of stopping or changing this. It is truly appalling. But as the alternative political parties promise only more and more unlimited access for the whole world, what alternative do we have?
1642again wrote:
Whether it makes or breaks the Tories is irrelevant. What matters is that it is ruining what was once the most civilised country in the world.
Paulski wrote:
United Kingdom GDP 2010 2.43 trillion US Dollars
United Kingdom GDP 2016 2.619 trillion US Dollars
United Kingdom GDP per capita 2010 39,899 US Dollars
United Kingdom GDP per capita 2016 38,709 US Dollars
So as the economy improved and grew, per head of population we got poorer.
Convince me that mass immigration has made each and everyone of us richer.
lms2 wrote:
To require immigrants to support elderly care and pensions ignores the fact that the immigrants get old eventually as well. It’s a never-ending treadmill, an immigration Ponzi scheme, with an ever-increasing population.
Ian Oliver wrote:
‘Immigration is beneficial to Britain. Britain has been built by immigrants.’ With such comforting phrases those who want to put themselves on the politically correct side of the debate (to the extent that any debate is actually allowed) like to reassure themselves that they are enlightened and making a stand against hate. But this is not comparing like with like.
In the period 1800 to 1945 average gross annual immigration into Britain was 16,000. It is now running thirty-five times higher. Furthermore, pre-war immigration was 64 per cent Irish. The same race, same language, same religion as us. Belgians and Jews were each around 10 per cent. The estimated total number of Africans and Arabs arriving was only 20,000 for the whole century and a half to 1945 (Wikipedia).
The word immigrant is being used for totally different animals when we compare historic with recent immigration. Imagine if my six year-old daughter protested to me ‘Daddy it’s unfair, I want a pet like my friend Matilda. Her Daddy lets her keep a pet hamster, why can’t I have a pet rhino, it’s not fair!’ I might try patiently to explain: Pets are not all the same. First it is a matter of scale. Secondly, a rhinoceros would change the way we live in our London flat, for the worse.
Joe Smith wrote:
A few decades from now, our descendants will look back and thank Merkel for making the plan to destroy the West so blatantly obvious that no one could ignore it any more.
paul parmenter wrote:
Growth in population would be fine if the size of the country and its natural resources grew along with it. Unfortunately the UK has a remarkably stubborn and most annoying tendency to stay the same size.
David wrote:
As a public and private sector senior Strategic Town Planner specialising in large schemes, with more than 35 years experience working in England, I have seen how, with soaring population levels, it has become increasingly difficult, and impossible now, to identify land for development that does not do serious harm to the quality of our environment . . . Even when I started as a young postgraduate in the early 70s, almost all the professionally ‘obvious’ sites for development had already been used by previous generations. By professionally obvious, I mean places where building would not do harm to our surroundings or the wildlife that lived there.
Mid-career I despaired when politicians started ignoring our advice and granted approvals to build in such foolish places as flood plains and near sensitive wildlife sites. At that time I coined, and then brought into widespread use, the phrase ‘infrastructure deficit’ to try to encapsulate in a single phrase the ever-advancing madness of building more and more homes without a clear commitment to provide all the necessary support services also needed at the same time.
The basic problem is that the top tier of government simply does not listen to the people, but ploughs on forcing the lower tiers of government, in all its forms, to continue accepting a tide of new homes, demand being largely led by continuing inward migration into these tiny islands, all to the frustration of thousands of local communities. By the time of my retirement I had reached the sad conclusion that democracy simply wasn’t working.
Kaiser wrote
[A village near me] is fighting proposals for a development of 4,000 houses. There are no schools in the plan, no shops, no pubs, no doctors, no dentists.
UKCitizen wrote:
It has one purpose and it is the same purpose as the rest of Europe – to abolish the nation state. If the populace has little connection to the nation apart from location then it becomes little more than a hotel and may as well be called airstrip1 for all anyone would care.
Avoided Cranium wrote:
Importing high and medium skilled people in unlimited numbers is not the solution to skills shortages. It may be cheaper and more convenient for businesses, but we should not let industry dictate what is happening to the infrastructure and culture of our country. In the old days there used to be something called ‘Manpower Planning’. That involved assessing and predicting future skill-gaps and making provisions well in advance . . . Importing labour from abroad might suit globalists but it denudes countries of their talent.
MidlandsFootballFans wrote:
It’s the British working class that I feel for. It is they who have seen their wages shrink in real terms, their job prospects disappear, their property prospects disappear and their local town centres, once a source of great pride, become embarrassments because of the cumulative effect of a massive intake of those with no stake in that society and a decrease in disposable income.
Colonel Mustard wrote:
A dubious report that has the whiff of contrivance about it rather than any foundation of broader cultural objectivity. All six managers of the MAC have an economics background and the Chair is from LSE. They are bean counters.
The important thing to bear in mind, whatever the impact of the mass immigration unleashed by the Blair regime and maintained by New Labour Continuity, is that no one who was not a politician ever asked for it or consented to it.
1642again wrote:
Never appoint a committee without first deciding on its members so it can be trusted to make the conclusions and recommendations you want.
