British PM launches immigration crackdown
David Cameron’s election pledge to reduce net immigration from the 150,000 it averaged under Labour to “tens of thousands” a year is proving a tough nut to crack. In his second big speech on immigration this year, the Prime Minister yesterday focused on two areas. He proposed new minimum income requirements for immigrants who “sponsor” wives and dependants to follow them to this country. A system of bonds is also being considered, requiring a surety to be paid by immigrants that will be forfeited if they choose not to return home.
The last government actually introduced such a scheme four years ago but quietly shelved it under pressure from immigrant communities. The Coalition needs to show greater resolve. It is not unreasonable to expect people who come here to lodge such a payment that can offset any demands they may make on the public purse. The Prime Minister also took the first steps towards making forced marriage – which he described as “little more than slavery” – a criminal offence. It is extraordinary that this is not the case already.
Mr Cameron is in the right territory. Among non-EU nationals, it is students, family members and dependants who now comprise two thirds of all immigrants. This is one aspect of immigration that needs to be discussed but rarely is. When it comes to immigration from the Indian subcontinent, and particularly Pakistan, politicians constantly give the impression that they are walking on eggshells. Their unwillingness to engage in debate allows the far Right to fill the vacuum.
The issue that specifically needs to be addressed is the last government’s reckless decision – motivated by cynical political considerations – to allow marriage to be used as a means of settling in this country. Before 1997, the Primary Purpose Rule required an applicant to show “that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom”. Now, it is possible to marry someone settled in Britain purely for the purpose of immigration, provided certain legal requirements are met. As a consequence of the rule change, immigration by spouses has doubled and problems of illiteracy and cultural isolation have grown. Restoring the Primary Purpose Rule would go a long way towards reducing forced marriages.
As for the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the public should report suspected illegal immigrants, that sounds like a dangerous piece of populism that could have unfortunate consequences. Mr Cameron would do better to focus the Government’s energies on stopping those who have no right to settle in this country from coming here in the first place.
SOURCE
Australian PM jawbones employers about hiring Australians first
Just political grandstanding. Only legislation would have any appreciable effect
The Prime Minister of Australia has urged employers to prioritise local workers over skilled migrants in filling jobs.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has told the media that vacant employment positions - particualrly in the lucrative mining and resources sector - should be filled by Australian workers rather than imported skilled labour, ahead of the national jobs forum in Canberra commencing Friday 7 October.
Ms Gillard said that unemployed Australians could be trained to fill demand in the mines. She specifically raised the possibility of re-training retrenched steelworks workers in Western Australia, and providing new opportunities to regional and rural communities through skills training.
"We don't want to leave a kid in Kwinana in Western Australia on the unemployment queue without skills while the people who operate big mines in the north-west of the state say can you import a plumber or a cook or an electrician for me," Gillard told Radio National. "I want that kid to get that opportunity."
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has supported the Prime Minister's comments, claiming that the use of skilled migrants indicates a lack of local skills training on the part of industry.
"The reason we are in this mess at the moment is that the mining industry has not invested in skills," said ACTU President Ged Kearney.
"They are not training apprentices, they are not training their workers. For years they have neglected this important part of their responsibility as an employer."
The Government amended the Australian immigration intake in 2009, reducing the number of skilled migrants to 115,000.
However, despite the imposed limit and recent comments, the Government also indicated in the Federal Budget handed down in May that the skilled migrant intake would be increased in 2012. 16,000 additional Australia visa grants will be allocated to skilled foreigners next year.
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