Immigration Watch International (2)

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

David Cameron: Immigration rhetoric hasn't damaged relationship with India

David Cameron claims Britain's debate over immigration hasn't damaged our relationship with India, saying Indian students recognise the need for a "controlled" policy.

David Cameron, who is in New Delhi on an official visit to India, said that the students he had talked to during his tour understood the need for the UK to clampdown on bogus colleges which has previously offered young Indians an easy route into Britain.

The Prime Minister claimed that the Coalition inherited 180 "bogus" colleges in the UK that were helping Indians gain visas only for them to turn up "in the economy doing unskilled jobs".

Bonafide Indian students recognised why the Coalition had to shut them down, according to Mr Cameron.

"They recognise we are making a very generous offer in saying their is no limit to the number of students from India who can come and study at British universities."

His comments follow his announcement yesterday of plans to amend the visa system to allow Indians coming to the UK on business to get a visa in just one day.

Britain already runs the largest visa operation in the world in India, processing over 400,000 visa applications a year and granting 9 out of 10 applicants a visa, Mr Cameron said in Mumbai yesterday.

SOURCE

Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

Media

1. Op-ed: Borking Immigration Hawks: The pro-amnesty Right is borrowing its views and its tactics from the Left

2. Op-ed: Immigration: Amnesty plan a bad idea

3. Op-ed: Prooftexting for Amnesty: Evangelical elites split with
the people in the pews over immigration policy

4. Op-ed: Legalizing illegal immigrants a bad idea

5. Op-ed: Just say no to amnesty redux

6. TV: Jessica Vaughan Discusses Amnesty on FOX News Boston

7. TV: Steven Camarota Debates Costs and Illegal Immigration on the O'Reilly Factor

8. Podcast: Jon Feere Debates Birth Tourism on the Huffington Post Live

Congressional Testimony

9. Jessica Vaughan's statement before the House Committee on the Judiciary

10. Jessica Vaughan's statement before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Publications

11. A Blueprint for Immigration Reform: Revisiting the Jordan Commission Report

12. Immigration and Obamacare: Proposed Medicaid Rules for Verifying Status

13. Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home: Results of a National Survey

14. Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants and the Employment Picture for Less-Educated Americans

Blogs

15. ICE Admits It Missed Yet Another Tunnel at Nogales

16. Can You Use Saul Alinsky's Radical Tactics and Also Be a Conservative?

17. Immigration Fraud Case Busted by SEC, Not DHS

18. McCain to Ramos: "You Don't Get It" on Border Security

19. "Hispanic" Activist Eva Longoria

20. Emotional Pleas Overshadow Rational Arguments at Senate Hearing

21. Speaking Out of Both Sides of Your Mouth

22. Washington Primer: How to Stage-Manage a Congressional Hearing

23. How Dante Would View Illegals and Income Tax Violators

24. The Old Spanish Empire Haunts Our Immigration Debates

25. Amnesty Is a Bad Idea

26. American Opportunity Centers

27. "I Pledge Allegiance..."

28. Nuances on the "Path to Citizenship" Emerge in Protracted House Hearing

29. A Dilemma for Many Diligent Democratic Members of the Congress

30. Evangelical Immigration Table: Are All Welcome?

31. Obama to DACA's: You Can Have Dessert Without Eating Your Spinach

32. A Feast of Immigration Quirks in the Current Issue of Interpreter Releases

No comments:

Post a Comment

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.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors