Labour’s immigration policy. ‘Britain without borders.’

Thirty-nine people die in the back of the truck. Is this a reason to change our entire immigration system? You would think so if you listened to the outpourings of grief from Dianne Abbott and her morally outraged friends on the left.

Sept 2019: Labour’s annual conference in Brighton unanimously backed a motion that commits the party to “free movement, equality, and rights for migrants”. 

Today we learned that the thirty-nine dead were Chinese nationals.   Are we supposed to allow entry to all Chinese people? All 1.5 billion of them?  What happens if all 8 billion human beings in the world decide to stampede and arrive on our little Island?  That is actually what Labour is suggesting – that all 30 million Nepalese and 4 million Jamaicans and a 200m Nigerians can arrive and so on.   If they all arrived, it would take over 100 square miles of room for them just to stand up. Just imagine the sewerage and squalor and theft and crime and general misery.

Can you imagine if we actually did this unilaterally?  That we became the only Western country to allow a billion Indians to arrive? Every inbound flight would be instantly full for months.  Airlines would respond by adding more flights and if there was the thought of generous benefits, it would not matter what the cost of that flight was.  Paying £5000 for a one-way ticket from the capital cities of Bamako, Thimphu or Ouagadougou does not matter if you have the expectation of a million pounds of free benefits, courtesy of the poor, long-suffering taxpayer.

It wouldn’t be Brexit that would cause the pound to collapse 50% in an afternoon but Labour’s poor-house immigration policies.

The average social security claimant receives between £10,000 and £20,000 of grossed-up benefits when housing benefits, national insurance, free prescriptions, and other subsidies are taken into account. By that I mean, the amount that they would have had to earn if normal taxation rates applied to the benefit.  Some people have received much more. There was the case of the Somali family who were given a £2m house in Clerkenwell. Their effective benefit on just the house was £100,000 alone. Numerous cases of £250,000 of benefit fraud abound.

If just a million people claim benefits at £20,000 for 50 years, that is £1 trillion.  

If ten million people claim, the taxpayer gets a £10 trillion bill.  It puts a few billion for Brexit into perspective. 

We have been here as a country before. When we decided to allow citizens of the Commonwealth to arrive with free access in the 1950s, the civil service and government thought no one would come and was surprised when they did.  Exactly the same thing happened when we allowed East European migrants to arrive – the ‘no one will come’ turned into a flood of millions.

Deaths are awful but we could stop them easily.  Australia has shown that. Singapore is surrounded by poor countries but has never had a problem with illegal migration.  Why? Automatic deportation, no asylum, and no benefits – do that and the deaths and illegal migrants stop overnight. Why pay when you will get absolutely nothing but a lot of hassle and arrest.

How much did it cost to get all the way from China via numerous countries and to pay smugglers?  £10,000? £20,000? Maybe more.

And why is it worth it?  Because we are such a soft touch.  Just 6% of all illegal immigrants crossing into Britain are deported according to Breitbart.  We might as well advertise, ‘Come and collect your £250,000’ in benefits on a billboard in Kathmandu.   You have almost zero chance of being deported.

Losing your job, living in a crime-plagued area, not getting your child into a school because the priority has been given to people who have just arrived upset and trouble people greatly.  Many cannot cope with the rapid transformation of their beloved country. Does anyone think about this? 

Labour opened the gates a few inches last time when they were in power admitting half a million a year. But then the party was led by Tony Blair, now it is led by a Marxist fanatic who believes that national borders are a capitalist tool to oppress the world’s working classes and should be dispensed with.

Remember this when you enter the polling station at the next election and what a Labour victory would mean.

Subscribe To Quarterly Digital Edition

Liked this Blog ? Why not post it to a friend ?

Subscribe To Quarterly Traditional Print Magazine (delivered to your door)

53 Comments on Labour’s immigration policy. ‘Britain without borders.’

  1. Sorry to say this but I have little faith in the youth of this nation to face up to the destructive effects of hard line socialism. Groupthink is almost a way of life for the iPhone generation. Why study books when all knowledge is on Google (the mighty oracle)? Teamwork is raised to the level of a fetish as soon as you enter the education system. If you have misgivings about the direction the crowd is taking why risk standing alone and being denigrated as a “no mates” loner or worse, a sociopath.

    Where are the young voices denouncing Extinction Rebellion insane proposals or questioning damaging results of mass immigration, of knee-jerk egalitarianism, or the failure of the criminal justice system to keep the law-abiding safe? If they exist they are intimidated into silence by the moral bullying of the Left-liberals. It would take a lot of confidence and courage (ie. backbone) to stand against the moral orthodoxy that says nobody but heartless capitalist crooks and Tory scum would fail to welcome the streams of desperate migrants.

    Anyway, as anyone below the age of 40 “knows” the blame for all social ills can be laid at the door of old white heterosexual males. The youth of Britain will be voting to the Left in a coming election.

    • mana in London
      The Teamwork fetish. I have thought this for some time. Any run of the mill Cop show has a group all patiently sharing opinions, whilst clutching coffee, no Sherlock Holmes no Father Brown even. So long to the driven man/woman it can all be “sorted out” collectively.

      • J. O’Connell
        Teamwork, of course, fits in tidily with the socialist world view. It also encourages conformity which is useful to big corporate employers so there are capitalist benefits too.

        To conform or not to conform? That is a question the Left tie themselves in knots over. Some years ago I watched an old Jean Luc Godard film where the director was shown encouraging school kids to question the way their desks were arranged in class – in rows facing the teacher. Was this not authoritarian? Did it not remind them of ranks of soldiers? Was this not the beginning of the destruction of their individuality by the capitalist system? A strange lack of awareness from Jean Luc Godard who was an ardent Maoist.

    • It is a mystery why all those third world people want to come to England, when everybody knows it’s a horrible, racist, evil country. Why do they want to suffer evil racism and discrimination? Why not stay home in their wonderful, rich traditional culture, so in harmony with nature?

      What’s that? “rich traditional culture” means “primitive tribal morality” and “in harmony with nature” means “a hellhole with no electricity or modern medicine”? Shhhh. Stop your hate speech.

      • Or they’ve been bombed out of their homes, arrested and tortured without charge or trial, being persecuted for religious or other reasons, are starving or have no clean water… It must be bad if they want to risk their lives merely escaping.

        Yes actually. Stop your hate speech. It’s nauseating.

        • Well, Andrew, it seems to me odd you believe, at the same time, that:

          1). All cultures are equal.
          2). Western culture is uniquely racist and evil.
          3). All the poor non-westerners must be allowed to enjoy western culture.

          Since each pair of these three dogmas of liberal foreign policy cotradicts each other.

          For example, if they *did* have their home bombed or were arrested without trial or prosecuted for religious reasons, that is because in the third world that is a contant part of the wonderful, rich political culture.

          You’re not telling me evil, western, dead white male promoted ideas like human rights or equality before the law are *superior* to non-western tribal morality, are you? That’s racist hate speech!

          • The ideas of the Enlightenment – human rights, freedom, science, etc. – were supposed to apply, for Kant and others of the Enlightenment, to ALL MANKIND. That they happened to be first promulgated in Europe, among white men, was a mere historical accident. They should be spread across the world – indeed, for Kant, in theory it should apply to all rational beings in the universe, including sentient robots on Mars, if there were any.

            But then the “post-colonialists” explained to us that such ideas are just European bigotry intended to enslave the “other ways of knowing” (superstition) and “traditional social structure” (absolute dictatorship, opression of women and minorities) of the third world. In fact, the Marxists told us such Enlightenment idea are just “bourgeoisie morality” shouldn’t even apply in Europe, it is just an excuse to opress the proletariat?

            So why, exactly, should it be of any concern that the third-worlders suffers from lack of freedom and knowledge? It’s their culture, we have no right to change it! And what will the immigrants gain, anyway, except for being opressed by the bourgeoisie, if they come to the west? That’s all those human rights and freedoms really do!

        • Bombed out of their homes, tortured, starved no access to clean water? Yet, somehow the 39 container victims managed to find the massive sums of money (more than I am able to muster) needed to pay the people smugglers. How is this done? The whole situation is far more complex than the ranting of heart-on-the-sleeve do-gooders would imply. But then adopting a high moral tone and condemning the failure of others has always been the easy option. Remember the shocked reaction of Hollywood celebs when Trump suggested setting up camps their neighbourhood for the “refugees” coming over the Mexican border? Celebs can throw their money and media presence at the problem but once their virtue has been signalled “society” must deal with the practicalities (preferably a safe distance away).

          “Hate speech”?! Now there is a term which was loosely defined from the beginning and has spread its reach wider and wider since then. It has degenerated into anything which challenges the cosy Left-liberal world view. Stop trying to shut down freedom of speech with your hysterical moralistic rantiing Andrew – that is truly nauseating.

          PS.
          Are you by any chance the sort of Antifa hero who tries to deplatform people whose opinions you can’t cope with by turning up at events with your face hidden in a balaclava and carrying a baseball bat for “protection”? Perhaps not. Coming as you have to a conservative magazine to express your moral outrage at the blatant conservative opinion expressed here shows that you are no more than a little man behind a big keyboard.

          • The wealthy ones will still be allowed in. I’m guessing that if you are wealthy you don’t travel in an airtight, windowless trailer.

          • Wrong again, in the last tragedy some in container paid $30,000. And you still has enough not answered my question as to what limit you would set<if any on migrant numbers to the UK?

  2. “Are we supposed to allow entry to all Chinese people? All 1.5 billion of them? What happens if all 8 billion human beings in the world decide to stampede and arrive on our little Island? That is actually what Labour is suggesting – that all 30 million Nepalese and 4 million Jamaicans and a 200m Nigerians can arrive and so on. If they all arrived, it would take over 100 square miles of room for them just to stand up. Just imagine the sewerage and squalor and theft and crime and general misery”

    ^^^^^ Project fear! Yes Cath, they’re all coming to get you. But think about this, if they all do come here you’ll have the rest of the planet to wander around all on your own.

  3. Has ‘Pixie’ Yvette Balls-Cooper taken in an asylum/immigrant family into one of her houses yet as she declared she would some years back? She and her fellow travellers spout just the same brand of moral grand-standing that privileged comfortably-off western Marxists proclaimed in the virtues of Stalin, Castro and Chaves, but preferred not to live in the Soviet Union, Cuba or Venezuela themselves.

  4. “Remember this when you enter the polling station at the next election and what a Labour victory would mean.”

    As opposed to the Tories doing the exact same thing at a slightly reduced pace?

  5. Catherine, is this lies, deceit or ignorance regarding Labours proposed ‘open borders’ policy? I have been posting this since December 2018!

    THE EU & UK (CONSERVATIVE) GOVERNMENT HAVE SIGNED UP TO ‘OPEN BORDERS’ AND LEGALISED PEOPLE SMUGGLING

    There are no ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘refugees’, ‘benefit tourists’, ‘economic migrants’ any more. The EU and UK government signed up to this in December 2018:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1199&v=5WRszRZBfYw

    There are only ‘MIGRANTS’. It is their ‘Human Right’ to go wheresoever they wish or are instructed to go. It is your ‘Human Right’ to pay for them.

    Any hopes of regaining control of our borders through ‘Brexit’ have been nullified by our treacherous ‘government and ‘deep state’ signing us up to the UN’s Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration’ last December. This is why all of our Newsfakers / Propaganda organisations only refer to those currently crossing the channel in an unorthodox way, bypassing border controls and customs, as ‘MIGRANTS’ who need to be ‘RESCUED’!

  6. Whilst I don’t agree with the UK signing the UN migration pact, i think some of the objections are overplayed. The pact is not legally binding.

  7. We have entered an age when a large part the populace feel the need to be ‘nice’, not offending others and to be easily offended themselves. Anything regarded as not nice is regarded as bad and to be rejected; result is a difficulty in getting anything sensible done !

  8. Uncontrolled immigration is to use a modish phrase unsustainable, it is also inhumane, both for the working people in the destination country, and for those duped into believing in a nirvana over the water (the exceptions, so beloved of television reporters, who become surgeons and rocket engineers are just that, exceptional), most of the immigrants (legal or illegal) will end up displaced, yearning for home, and adrift in a land and culture they don’t understand. The only winners in this, shipment of workers as if they were little more than components, are the corporatist globalisers, and supra-national bodies such as the UN and the EU. It seems that to the overpaid the nonsense ideology of ‘just in time’ applies to people as well as machines.

  9. Unrestrained immigration from Nepal? The thought of having Gurkhas as neighbours sounds quite appealing when I consider some of the white British vermin I have had to live amongst over the years.

  10. I notice that Andrew always leaves the site when he is asked a specific question such as what limit if any he thinks should be put on the numbers of migrants entering the UK.

    Where he got the idea that people migrated here because they were poor or persecuted I don’t know. The average price for entering Britain illegally in order to take from our social security funds is between $5000 and $11,000. A family might send one individual by combining their savings, on condition he will when he gets a passport or permission to stay, the second virtually automatic, then marry a bride back home and bring her wife and then relatives in. The poor the persecuted, the imprisoned, the displaced or the sick , who we should be taking if their cases are genuine, rarely appear on our shores.

    For people like Andrew, the so called refugees are middle class, like I suspect he is, and only interested in their own self interest.

      • Every time a liberal has no answer to some point, he declares the person who made it “insensible”, “illiterate”, “ranting”, or in a word – an inferior peasant who has no right to question their betters. But, snobism aside, it’s just circular reasnoning, very common in liberal-think: they answer “sensible” questions, and a “sensible” question is one they want to answer.

        For a liberal, a “sensible” discussion is one where you listen quietly and are convinced meekly, Any point you make that the liberal finds difficult to answer is declared “insensible” – or “hate speech” – and ignored, while they being angry at you for being so “illiterate” as to raise it in the first place.

  11. It seems to me the left thinks that any country which has a majority of Europeans is ipso facto llegitimate, and must be made “muticultural” by any means, any opposition being, of course, “racist”.

    This is not surprising, lefties having learned nothing from their degree in (in effect) Marxist Victimology except how evil Europeans are.

  12. Catherine tells us: “Singapore is surrounded by poor countries but has never had a problem with illegal migration. Why? Automatic deportation…”

    Indeed. Look at the bewigged chinless wonders who sit on your law benches. A case can be made they are the ones primarily responsible for mass immigration into the UK. They will never feel the pain.

    • Why don’t you Brits make ’em feel the pain – rub the Left’s noses in it!
      Publish the whereabouts of the Supreme Court judges (Spiderwoman is at Gray’s Inn) and the celebs and the progressive politicians (Blair and crew) and the Archbishops of Canterbury on the web and direct the millions of arriving migrants to them. Put up road signs directing them to soup kitchens and welcoming camps in Lake Garda (outside one of the Clooneys’ palaces), Canterbury (in the Cathedral grounds), Parliament Square and Worth Matravers in Dorset. Build mosques there and enlist the RNLI’s assistance to disembark channel-crossing chancers in Poole, which means they only have a short journey to Nick Phillips’ garden shed, or Dover, which is only a short journey in the back of a truck to Welby’s serviced office. That’ll teach them the meaning of inevitability!

  13. It’s somewhat amazing and maybe confusing when so many sidetracks, deliberate stirring and ad hominem fights emerge following a straight-forward article such as that above.

    Ordinary people are worried and puzzled at what is happening, not only on immigration but on other matters, such as Brexit, partly because the media are failing to inform them honestly. There is a view, one having considerable merit, is that the U(?)K and U(?)SA are both being deliberately and systematically destroyed by Marxism, by uncontrolled immigration, by envy, by anti-Christianity and pro- other philosophies, by legalised immorality, by duplicity and, yes, by sheer hatred of us, by …(you probably know who “they” are).

    Suffice it that, if we are properly informed, the outworking of this onslaught is very evident in all our institutions – all main political parties national and local, the religious denominations, the legal platforms, the massed ranks of “education” (= propaganda), approaching 100% of the media (referred to above), and one could add etc if there was anything left (sorry, wrong word; try remaining, sorry, wrong again because of non-Brexit!).

    The irony, and the whip end, of this is that the very crowd that is destroying us will itself also be ultimately destroyed, including their indoctrinated children (if they have any).

    The big problem, in fact really the only problem, is what can legally be done about it, to reverse it all? And answer came there none.

  14. “Progressive” beliefs are like Rolex watches or luxury cars. They are a status symbols, showing others you can afford to be insulated from the consequences of those beliefs.

  15. >>>>>“Hate speech”?! Now there is a term which was loosely defined from the beginning and has spread its reach wider and wider since then.

    Like “racist” or “x-phobe” all it means is “I disagree with you so shut up, peasant.”

  16. The middle classes are okay with immigration, they’ve not seen their wages driven down or have ever been on a council housing waiting list. Like they can also pay private to see a GP rather than wait a couple of weeks, or even longer, on the NHS.

    And opposition to immigration is mostly nothing to do with race. Most immigrants to the UK over the last decade or so have been fellow Europeans and who have integrated well.

    The term ‘racist’ these days is just a nasty slur the left uses against the white working classes who they despise. In fact, they despise the white working classes so much I think they would rather see us replaced.

  17. It is never clear to me from the news reports who is an economic migrant and who is a genuine refugee fleeing persecution in their home country. The latest tragic case of the Vietnamese is clear cut: these were economic migrants seeking a better life. I suspect the majority seeking entry to the EU are economic migrants. The cynic in me supposes that the Labour party have a vested interest as the majority of migrants will tend to vote for Labour.

    • It’s gerrymandering on a global scale. The same thing happens in the US: the Democrats demonize the Republicans as “far right” and “racist”, keep the borders open and support “sanctuary cities” – the millions who then get over the border are only too happy to vote for them.

      In a few years the West will be unrecognizable. The people who built those nations and led the world in recent centuries will become the a minority. It’s payback time. But the Democrats and Britain’s Labor supporters will come to regret what they have wrought as what they have created descends into a new Dark Ages.

  18. Incidentally, a recent poll shows that for the first time since WWII, about half of all Jews in a European nation, Britain, will consider it necessary to run away if an anti-Semitic party, Labor, comes to power.

  19. Catherine Blaiklock writes: “We have been here as a country before. When we decided to allow citizens of the Commonwealth to arrive with free access in the 1950s, the civil service and government thought no one would come and was surprised when they did.”

    The decision was taken not by us in the 1950s, but by the vile socialist government in 1948, with the passing of the notorious Nationality Act. The socialists hoped that thousands of Labour-voting parasites would invade the UK, but their expectations were exceeded when not thousands but millions arrived. It started with the “Windrush” invaders, and has got worse and worse with every succeeding year. And the so-called Conservatives have cheerfully endorsed the socialist policy. No Conservative has dared to speak against it since Enoch Powell.

    “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”

    Compulsory repatriation of millions of unsuitable immigrants is the only plausible solution.

    • “PJR”: “The decision was taken not by us in the 1950s, but by the vile socialist government in 1948, … The socialists hoped that thousands of Labour-voting parasites would invade the UK,…. It started with the “Windrush” invaders, …
      Compulsory repatriation of millions of unsuitable immigrants is the only plausible solution.”

      Based purely on the nauseating language you’ve used here, you really are a disgusting, hateful little shit, aren’t you? Do you ever pause for a moment to reflect on the hideous impression you have of other human beings?

      • Andrew: When I was a teenager in the 1970s, I might well have described the views of my parents and grandparents about immigration as nauseating, but forty further years of experience and observation have led me to suspect that they, like their hero Enoch Powell, were right.

        If you have a better idea for improving Western Civilisation’s chances of survival in the UK (and elsewhere) than compulsory repatriation of millions of dangerous, hostile, unwanted and polyphiloprogenitive immigrants, feel free to explain.

        I didn’t pick the last-resort solution of compulsory repatriation without great reluctance and careful consideration of all other options. I’m not a supporter of the National Front. On the contrary, I’m merely the kind of “disgusting, hateful little shit” that almost everybody in the UK used to be, within living memory.

        • No they weren’t. You’re just a bit potty, that’s all, but in a very unpleasant way. Thanks for confirming you’re such an extremist, and where it came from. Maybe you should consider the National Front”. How is it you differ from their views?

          If your culture can’t survive a few different people living in the same country then it’s not worth preserving.

          • Hello again, Andrew!

            How can you describe ever-increasing millions of “different people” as “a few”?

            As for me, I think that being a bit potty, even in a “very unpleasant” way, is better than being an enemy of one’s own country and culture, as all our immigrant-friendly politicians are.

            I’m aware that the NF are the only political party that has a policy of compulsory repatriation, but I disagree with all their other policies. And behind their publicly declared policies is a hinterland of skinheaded nastiness that doesn’t appeal to me at all.

            I don’t *enjoy* having extreme opinions, Andrew. I just can’t see any plausible alternative.

  20. One might wonder, though, how after 70 years of such a monstrous invasion by millions of barbarians, there wasn’t massive civil war long ago, despite this being inevitably predicted as imminent. One does not have to support unresricted immigration to think that fears of the invading barbarians often comes more from paranoia than reality.

    But, to be fair to Enoch Powell, he did NOT say “rivers of blood” would flow, but that the Thames would “flow woth much blood” – a reference to Virgil’s Aeneid where “the Tiber flows with much blood” as a symbol of strife and civil war. He feared strife and, perhaps, civil war, yes – but that rivers of blood (of either natives o immigrants) would literally flow in the streets, no.

    • Skeptic: It’s always seemed odd to me that Our Enoch quoted Virgil, who supported the invader Aeneas against the native Turnus. I have a nasty suspicion that Our Enoch was aware of the original context but assumed that all his audience were ignorant.

      But Our Enoch didn’t say that a civil war was imminent; he merely implied that it was increasingly possible. (And I question your use of the term “civil war” to describe a war between natives and foreigners.)

      The reason we haven’t had a war in the UK, whether we call it civil or not, it that the natives of the UK are thoroughly indoctrinated by their masters in the belief that their culture is being enhanced and enriched, when in reality their culture is being destroyed. Any reluctance to accept this destruction is punishable as “hate crime”, so I’d better shut up.

      • No, the reason we haven’t had a war in the UK over immigration is because most people aren’t remotely bothered by it.

        Why on Earth does your culture suffer? What are “they” stopping you from doing? Was Glyndebourne cancelled this year?

        • Actually, immigration has been the #1 issue bothering British from 2001 to 2016, according to “the migration survery” :

          https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/

          Most British are very much bothered by immigration – not of immigration in general, but of unskilled immigrants who mostly live on the public dole and/or become criminals.

          It is, unsurprisingly, the case that most such immigrants come from Africa or the middle east, while most skilled immigrants (like the proerbial Polish plumber) come from Europe. This allows the intelligentsia and the press declare any opposition to immigration as “racism” by the hoi polloi.

          By the way, Andrew, what limits would you accept on immigration? Any limits at all?

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Labour’s Immigration Policy: Britain without Borders – Technical Politics

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.