Saturday, November 28, 2020
Home News Tamara Chabe: Labour’s immigration muddle is a product of conflicting values

Tamara Chabe: Labour’s immigration muddle is a product of conflicting values

-

Leaflets distributed by Labour that detail the party’s so-called “tough new approach to immigration” have been criticised by David Lammy MP.

Mr Lammy says that labour is a pro-immigration party and should not “race to the bottom trying to out-kip Ukip”.

The so-called tough new approach includes ensuring that all frontline nurses and care workers speak English, stopping people claiming benefits until they have lived here for two years, and clamping down on illegal immigration by recruiting extra border staff to count people in and out.

Dan Hodges writing in The Daily Telegraph accused Ed Miliband of “selling out” Labour’s soul by allowing such leaflets to be distributed.

The proposals in the leaflets are entirely reasonable and common sense and it is disappointing that Mr Lammy is unable to engage with the concerns and worries of working class and blue-collar workers.

The Labour party says that it believes in the welfare state.  However, the survival of the welfare state is actually dependent on a cohesive society. Open borders are a threat to the existence of the welfare state because they increase suspicion and create resentment. Trust, shared goals and values are important and in their absence, it is unlikely that people would want to contribute to socialised welfare programmes.

I want a smaller government and a welfare state that doesn’t trap people into dependency and is just a safety net. But for a Labour party that views the welfare state as a means of implementing so-called “social justice” and as a vehicle for achieving socialist utopia, it is strange that it does not realise that open borders threaten that vision.

There is nothing unreasonable about expecting front line public sector workers to speak good English. A patient has a right to expect that a doctor or nurse speaks fluent English.

Borders controls are not racist and in fact democracy is dependent on a cohesive society.

Immigrants have made fantastic contributions, but it is wrong that politicians should avoid discussing immigration for fear of offending immigrants. It also belittles the concerns of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants who have integrated and view themselves as British citizens.

Immigrants who have integrated and feel British do not fear conversations about immigration.

Prominent ethnic minority MPs and social justice advocates support the European Union and open borders but say very little about the high unemployment rates for young black men. I’ve always argued that open borders with Europe do not pass the fairness test. Europe has poor race relations, and a black Briton out of work would be much more likely to move to the USA, Canada, or back to Africa, and not to Germany or France.

Black British actors seeking diverse opportunities move to the United States of America not Europe because of similarities in language and culture. Ethnic minorities fare badly in socialist societies. Free markets promote equality of opportunity whereas planned and highly regulated societies support elitism and cronyism. Ethnic minorities have fared much better in Anglosphere nations.

The Labour party been hijacked by powerful special interest groups, which makes it difficult to take a coherent approach to immigration. The hard-line feminist lobby, for example, is pro-immigration and open borders because it views them as a vehicle for securing women’s rights. Patriotism is viewed as a threat because it creates a patriarchal society where women are expected to get married and have children. Maurice Glasman is very unpopular with the hard-line feminist movement who object to the blue Labour concept of “faith, flag and family”.

Labour is in a mess on immigration because it is unclear about what it stands for and what its values are.

In any event, the leaflets were disingenuous. The Labour party wants to keep Britain in the European Union and the EU has clearly said that free movement of people is non negotiable.

- Advertisement -

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Tamara Chabe
Ms Chabe is a Legal/Business Advisor with a special interest in Business, Current Affairs & Leadership matters

Sign up for The ConWom News

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.


Follow us!

Share this post