Foreigners take two out of three new British jobs as statistics reveal nearly 200,000 vacancies were filled by those born overseas
These figures will not be much of a surprise in Australia. As Australians sometimes say in their splendid slanguage: "A Pom wouldn't work in an iron lung". In other words, Britons are seen as characteristically work-shy
Just a third of all jobs created last year went to British-born workers, official figures indicate. They show that only 100,000 of the 297,000 workers who began new posts between July and September 2010 were native Britons. Of the rest, 90,000 were born in Poland and other Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004, and the remainder were born elsewhere in the world.
The summer figures from the Office for National Statistics are the latest available and are understood to be representative of the whole year.
The analysis, published in the ONS journal Economic and Labour Market Review, also showed that while a million jobs have become available in Britain over the past six years, there are now a third of a million fewer British-born people in work.
Since the beginning of 2004, the number of British-born people in jobs has gone down by 334,000, while nearly 1.3million foreign-born individuals have found work in the UK. Of these, 530,000 were from Eastern Europe and 770,000 from elsewhere in the world.
Sir Andrew Green, of the think-tank MigrationWatch, said: ‘These latest figures can only be described as spectacular. There are no fixed numbers of jobs in an economy but it is very hard to escape the conclusion that foreign-born workers are taking jobs that might be done by British workers.’
SOURCE
Asylum seeker who killed girl in hit and run 'should be deported', says immigration minister
The father of a girl left dying in the road after being mown down by a failed asylum seeker has been handed a major boost in his bid to have him deported. Aso Mohammed Ibrahim knocked down Amy Houston, 12, and fled the scene leaving her under the wheels of his car. He was arrested and served four months in prison but launched legal action to be allowed leave to remain in the UK.
Last year his fight against deportation was successful after he argued sending him home would breach his right to a 'private and family life' under the Human Rights Act as he had fathered two children here.
But Amy's father, Paul Houston, 41, has continued to campaign for Ibrahim to be deported claiming the Act had become nothing more than a charter for thieves, killers, terrorists and illegal immigrants. Now he has been handed fresh hope after his campaign was backed by immigration minister Damian Green. In a letter to Mr Houston, the immigration minister said: 'I agree that Mr Ibrahim should not be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom.
'Mr Ibrahim was convicted of committing an offence that led to the tragic death of Amy Houston and it is my personal view that he should be removed.'
His support comes as it was announced the case was set to go before the High Court in London. The Home Office has granted UK Borders Agency bosses permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to overturn the Upper Immigration Tribunal's decision to allow Ibrahim to stay in Britain.
Ibrahim, 33, arrived in Britain hidden in the back of a lorry in January 2001. His application for asylum was refused and a subsequent appeal in November 2002 failed, but he was never sent home.
Amy was killed in 2003 after she was hit by a Rover driven by Ibrahim who then fled the scene leaving the girl crying in pain under the wheels. The Iraqi Kurd was jailed for just four months after admitting driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident.
Since his release from prison he has racked up a string of criminal convictions, including more driving offences, harassment and cautions for burglary and theft.
But Ibrahim embarked on a relationship with Christina Richardson and they had two children, Harry, four, and Zara, three. He was able to escape deportation from the UK by using the Human Rights Act to successfully argue he had a right to a family life.
The UK Border Agency launched a last-ditch appeal against that decision in an attempt to have him kicked out. But at a hearing in Manchester in November immigration judges, Deborah Taylor and Clive Lane, rejected the appeal. Now senior judge in the High Court will now review case documents to determine whether an appeal can be heard.
Mr Houston said: 'I'm hopeful we will be given an appeal and we will finally be able to argue that Mr Ibrahim should have been deported years ago.'
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment