Immigration is a big worry for many Britons. Many in the country are concerned about both the numbers and types of migrants who come into the country. People are worried about the social damage that importing millions of people with little heed to whether or not they would either fit in or contribute.
They are also angry that so many are abusing an asylum system that should have seen limited numbers of people allowed in for humanitarian reasons and it being turned into a way for possibly dangerous chancers to enter the UK and not be removed. The Tories understand this national concern about excessive numbers and inappropriate types of immigration, which is why they constantly pledge at election time that if the electorate chooses the Tories then the Tories will do what the British people want and reduce immigration.
Immigration is a good vote winner for the Tories. The Tories use immigration and the justifiable anger about it as a net to capture voters. The problem is that the Tories keep on making these promises to reduce immigration and remove unwanted foreign born criminals and ponces, but consistently fail to deliver.
I’m concerned about excessive and inappropriate immigration to the UK as are many other Britons, but I don’t think I can give my vote to the Tories any more. People including myself have voted Tory in the expectation that they will reduce inflows. We also wanted a government to remove those from overseas who are not conducive to the public good because they are criminals or are promoting religious extremism or are just here for the bennies and houses that the state gifts them and to which they have not contributed to. None of the necessary policies that are needed to tackle our immigration problems have been brought in or carried through by the Tories.
The Tories don’t deserve the votes of people who are concerned with excessive immigration and the problems that it has brought. The Tories have let such people down time and time again.
So which party does have a sound policy on migration? Obviously not Labour or the Lib Dems as they would merely prop the doors of the country even further open. I, for the obvious reason of being a civic nationalist rather than an ethno-nationalist, would never vote for any of the jackboot licker type parties and in any event such parties are doomed by their own extremism to the fringe and therefore doomed to perpetual failure. They have no broad appeal outside of tiny geographical and intellectual areas and their ideology is not one that has been widely accepted in Britain at least since the end of World War II. This is not surprising as Britain is one of those nations that has built a self-image of the nation whose people and military stood alone for a while against others spouting the same sort of nonsense that the ethno-nat extremists do. There’s a ‘yuck’ factor about these groups similar to the ‘yuck’ factor I found on the revolutionary Left back when I was a younger man.
Reform talks a good game regarding immigration and they have the potential to hit the Tories and possibly Labour hard in areas where the settlement of dinghy invaders has brought with it crime and disturbance. But Reform are not the only non-extreme party out there with immigration policies that are far better than those on offer from the Tories.
The Social Democratic Party has produced an immigration plan that is worth a bit of a detailed examination. This policy does appear to look as if it could be effective and bring about an immigration system that allowed in those migrants we need because they have specific skills or expertise whilst stopping the migration we do not need. It looks like it will close at least one of the loopholes in immigration law that has helped to facilitate entry to Britain by those who really should not be there. This policy plan also tackles chain migration and the abuse of the asylum system whilst still permitting the entry of a number of genuine refugees whose stories can be verified.
I’m going to take each point from the SDP’s immigration plan in turn and examine it in more depth. As is usual policy for this blog the original text is in italics whereas my comments are in plain text.
- In the interests of Britain’s community relations and the survival of our hard-won welfare state we will vigorously resist the idea of ‘open borders’. Britain’s immigration policy must be skills-based, needs-based, legal and subject to democratic control.
On this point I very much agree. There is nothing to be gained as regards to community relations by letting a currently bad open borders migration policy continue. The current policies with their excessively high migration levels anger people and increase social tension.
- We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty. We will promote a new set of international agreements on refugee rights which are fit for purpose, protect genuine refugees and do not facilitate people trafficking and illegality.
It’s difficult to disagree with this part of the SDP’s immigration policy. The 1951 Refugee Convention was written for a time that is very much different from today. The 51 Convention was put together at a time when the world was reeling from 55 million deaths during World War II which includes the genocide carried out by the Nazis, when Europe was tying to deal with millions of people displaced during the war and there was an increasingly tense stand off between the West and the Soviet bloc. Whatever challenges the world faces now are nothing like that but we are having to live with rules that were formulated for situations very different from those that face us.
Some of the other conventions such as the Statelessness Conventions are in urgent need of reform. Designed in part following World War II so that no nation could remove citizenship from some unfavoured minority within their borders and by doing so make that person stateless and therefore be left with nowhere else to go, it started out as being a reasonable response to a situation that existed at the time. It probably did some good in the early days of its existence but has become a massive hole in the abilities of nations to defend themselves from those who they do not want to enter. It has become all too common for illegal migrants including the Channel invaders to destroy any identification documents that they have before they enter the UK or UK waters in order to disguise their origin. Because of the Statelessness Conventions, if the origin of the migrant invader cannot be ascertained then Britain cannot make that person stateless and we end up with being stuck with them.
- We will reduce net migration to 50,000 per annum and promote a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion. Agreements between key strategic partners may result in selective exemptions if clearly in the national interest.
I welcome a reduction in net migration but 50k is still too much. It’s a number that is equivalent to a small town entering every year. This figure needs to be half that at least especially as the country is already suffering from the effects of a grossly liberal immigration system and will suffer more as economic conditions worsen. It’s politically and morally untenable to allow in so many people whilst Britons of all races and faiths face increased difficulties in living.
- All unsolicited asylum applications via breaches of the UK border will be declined. They will result in immediate repatriation or detention offshore within British Overseas Territories until repatriation can be arranged. The UK will contribute to humanitarian resettlement of genuine refugees by offering 20,000 refugee visas annually to carefully vetted families with children in UN refugee camps or near major conflict zones.
This ban on unsolicited asylum applications by those who have entered illegally is similar to the Australian model which states that if migrants arrive by illegal sea entry or by any other means then they will not under any circumstances be staying in the country. I disagree with having such a high fixed level for refugees personally I’d much rather this matter be decided on a case by case basis with a significant amount of democratic input into the question ‘should we allow x type of refugees into the UK’ and consideration given to whether or not the alleged refugee would fit in and be an asset or whether they will not.
I also have doubts as to whether these 20k places would be filled by those who are in genuine need and who will be grateful for help or will they be filled up with the sharp elbowed ones who are adept at working systems whether those systems are regarding immigration or something else. If it is right and proper to help people displaced by war or conflict then in my view it’s better, cheaper and less disruptive to the lives of British subjects to give aid close to the conflict zones to assist those who may not have the wherewithal or abilities to blag their way to the UK.
- A foreign spouse of a UK citizen will not qualify for UK residence if there is evidence that the marriage was entered into primarily to obtain admission to the UK. He or she must also demonstrate good-quality spoken and written English. Family visas will be offered only to direct lineal ancestors or descendants of UK citizens.
This is bringing back the Primary Purpose Rule which Labour scrapped almost as soon as they came into office in 1997. This rule meant that cases of spousal migration were examined to see if the primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain British citizenship. This rule should never have been scrapped as it allows fake marriages for the purpose of getting a British passport to take place. It’s good to see that the SDP have a policy to tackle chain migration by limiting family visas to those who were born in the UK and can trace their family to the UK.
- No person will be offered UK citizenship unless they have spent 7 years resident in the UK with ‘probationary leave to remain’ (PLR) status. While on PLR any indictable offence committed or any act considered materially hostile to Britain’s social peace will result in prompt deportation after a single review by a specialist tribunal.
This is an excellent idea. There’s no reason why honest and loyal migrants to the UK should fear having to complete a probationary period before getting UK Citizenship. The only ones who might fear this are the criminals, the wrong’uns and the promoters of Islamism.
Study visas will be cut by half to approximately 250,000 per annum and only allocated to students with places at accredited universities and colleges. Work visas will be restricted to those with specifically required skills and sponsored by employers with a strong record as payers of UK corporate tax. Employers of illegal immigrants or people without a valid work permit will be liable to fines of up to £100,000 per employee concerned, or £1m and criminal penalties where the offence is knowing and systematic.
Agree with the idea of a firm limit to the numbers of student visas. However the way that educational facilities are accredited needs to be robust so that skanky little English Language schools don’t get accredited and become a back door way for people to enter the UK and then disappear. It’s also correct that work visas should be reserved for those with skills that are not commonly found in the UK. But I’m less keen on the idea that the work visa scheme should be reserved for companies with a strong UK taxation record. This could exclude the sort of dynamic start up companies that Britain needs from being able to access the particular skill sets they need and which might only be found in an overseas candidate. We’ve already got penalties for the employment of illegal migrants but these laws depend on them being able to be enforced.
- People who have been resident in the UK unlawfully for more than five years before this policy comes into effect will be offered PLR status if they come forward in a defined period and can show evidence of a settled family life in the UK.
This is reasonably fair on those who might already be here and whose status in UK law is shaky. Where I would offer caveats is that anybody who is offered this PLR status must have a clean criminal record and some evidence that they’ve contributed to the UK. Just having ‘settled family life’ as the reason why an illegal person can stay will be all too easily exploited by the open borders crowd.
- Exit checks at all UK points of departure will be reinstated and matched with visa entry data to ensure that overstay is tracked and prevented.
This should have been done years ago. It’s wrong that we have little idea who is leaving the country. It does mean that we cannot track those who overstay their visas with any sort of accuracy.
There’s some good stuff in the SDP’s immigration policy. I don’t agree with all of it and I can see how some aspects of it would still leave loopholes in migration control. But it is better than what is on offer from the perennially disappointing Tories or Labour’s idea that the world could and should come to the UK.
I don’t agree with all the SDP’s policies, their environmental and transport policies are a little too ‘green’ for my liking but policies like this might change as energy reality meets energy fantasies, just as there are some policies of other parties that I disagree with. But, they seem to be on the right track with their migration policy at least. I would certainly consider voting for the SDP on their immigration policy alone provided that the candidate wanting my vote was sane and reasonable.
It must by now be clear the Conservatives have no idea how to reduce immigration and probably don’t really want to anyway. As a one time Conservative member who is now totally in despair about them I will probably vote Reform if they stand. If they don’t I might just break the habit of a lifetime and holding my nose vote Labour. Not because I want to or have any faith in them but to remove our present Conservative MP who has proved to be an utterly self centered sycophant who doesn’t care about his constituency only his own career.
I’ve looked at a number of alt parties as potential receptacles for my vote and out of all of them Reform and SDP look the most sensible. However that does not mean that I agree with all their policies. Reform’s big put off for me is their plan for an elected upper house as the last thing we need is more expensive elected politicians when what is needed is to reverse much of the damage that Blair did to the House. SDP’s environmental policies are a downer but I dare say that the SDP would be more likely to abandon a fantasy energy policy than would the Tories or Labour.
Still, neither of them are as bad as the Tories or Labour so despite policy misgivings I’d be tempted to vote for Reform or SDP rather than vote Tory to keep the Labour Party out.
I rather like the idea of an elected second chamber, it seems to me to be more democratic then our present system of a house stuffed with those born in the right bed or placed to support some PM or other. If an elected second chamber was kept to a far more reasonable number than our present anacronism of a house it could be cheaper, after all you can pick up £300> for simple signing in while your taxi waits for you today, that’s of you don’t fancy an after lunch snooze on the red benches.
I used to believe that an elected second chamber was a good idea but the more I looked at the sort or problems that can come with an elected second chamber the more I started to move away from the idea. In the USA for example you can have one party hold the House and another hold the Senate which means that the Senate can hold up or block legislation that the lower house might like to pass. You can end up with political deadlock.
There does need to be reform of the Upper House but the way to reform is to put right all the wrecking that the Blair government did to it. It was working reasonably well with a mixture of hereditary and life peers until Blair’s government removed most of the hereditary peers and stuffed the house with his cronies and party donors.
My personal preference with regards to reform of the Lords would be to remove over time the party donors and cronies and bring back many more of the hereditary peers who were kicked out by Blair. I would also create a new class of peer to serve for a ten year period and made up of people chosen at random via the voters register. More details on my ideas via this link. https://www.fahrenheit211.net/2020/12/31/a-radical-suggestion-for-house-of-lords-reform/
I respect your view but I would caution beware what you wish for. I have personally met a few peers of the realm and they certainly didn’t impress to say the least. The one that sticks in my mind most was Lord Longford who spent many years trying to free Myra Hindley. Let’s say once met never forgotten and leave it at that because this is a public forum.
I believe, based on looking at their output, that the peers are a mixed bunch some are a bit ‘out there’ like the late Lord Longford or utterly misguided such as Lord Dubs and his insistence that the bearded invaders across the channel are the equivalent of the pre war Kindertransport children, but there also solid performers such as Baroness Fox the liberty campaigner, Baroness Nicholson who does sterling work fighting for women’s rights against the trans cultists, the late Viscount Stockton who challenged the Thatcher govt’s ‘sell it all’ philosophy and many more.
The rot set into the Lords with Blair’s reforms that removed a valuable source of viewpoint diversity which was the hereditary peers and replaced them with no mark yes men.
Living in Honiton, I think it’s a shame that the SDP haven’t decided to field a candidate in the election this Thursday: They would certainly get my vote. The LibDems are sure that they will win and have been filling my recycling bin with their leaflets, which arrive almost daily. Labour have been almost silent, even though we voted in a Labour councillor in the recent East Devon Council elections. I did ponder about voting Conservative as I wouldn’t like the LibDems to win, but it looks like Reform will get my vote. Maybe a big enough backlash against the established parties would make them see sense.
In your situation the Reform Party looks the most likely place for your vote. I’d be doing the same. What I won’t be doing is holding my nose and voting Conservative. The Tories would have to go an awful long way to regain my trust.
I think that the Lib Dems will take Honiton in a protest vote. I’ve got some sources in the Lib Dem party who tell me that they’ve been bussing Lib Dem activists and door knockers from as far afield as South Shropshire.
There does need to be a massive backlash against the legacy parties. It’s the only way that there will be positive change.
Yes, but the immigration issue is complex, the UK with a declining native birthrate has had to accept migrant workers for the ‘economic growth’ or even the sustainability of the economy. The issue I think comes up via Need v. Greed. Capitalism is kind of OK if it’s a viable form in the market economy but if it extends into profit making for pure greed, then not?
We also have a rapidly automating economy that doesn’t require so many workers. Automation hit the manufacturing industries years ago and AI and Expert Systems are doing the same to non manual labour.
There is no need as I see it for Britain’s immigration level to be so high. Unfortunately there are some for whom an endless supply of cheap labour is what’s wanted and to hell with the Britons who have to deal with the consequences. The current levels of immigration are unsustainable I don’t think tht is in doubt for anyone who studies the figures.
We need an immigration system that is as a priority fair to Britons. However that system also needs to be fair for those migrants who really want to embrace being British and contribute tothe nation and who might have worked hard to be the sort of person Britain needs. In order to achieve this situation the chancers and ponces and those of ill intent need to be kept out and removed.
Hi Marian, May I suggest that the real reason we have a decline in birth rate here is that our taxes and cost of living are incredible. My children and most others who pay their own bills have only been able to afford 1 child per couple because as responsible people that’s all they can afford to look after properly.