Immigration, EU-style

The European Commission has announced a new policy to reduce immigration.  It will allow a substantial number of foreign nationals to enter the EU every year.  It will allocate them between member states (so we in Britain will have no say over who or how many we get).  It will provide financial assistance to the states receiving them, from a central fund.  It will conduct regular meetings to assess which particular foreign regions suffering war, famine or poverty best qualify for a quota of immigrants.
The reason for this programme is that if a reasonable number are admitted legally to the EU, this will discourage illegal immigration.
Confused?  Bewildered?  So am I.  Even allowing for the Commission’s labyrinthine logic, I simply cannot see a connection between the policy and the objective.  If I am a poor Somali seeking the Eldorado which I imagine the EU represents, why will I be deterred at the thought that some thousands of other people have been given a free entry visa?  Surely the reverse is true — if they’re letting in thousands, there must be room for me.  If those poor people are given a right to enter the EU, then surely in all justice I am entitled to the same?
I recall Churchill’s wartime speech where he jeered at those whose policy was to throw lumps of meat to the crocodile, in the vain hope that it would eat them last.  If the Commission imagines that the world’s poor and huddled masses will be appeased and satisfied because a few thousand have won the jackpot, it had better think again.
Imagine how we should feel if we received the following letter from the local constabulary: “Dear Householder,  We are recommending a new policy to combat burglary.  We have found that if you move all your valuables out of the house and onto the front lawn, this will greatly reduce the chance of your house being broken into”.
This seems to be the policy which the Commission is applying.  I shall vote against it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Immigration, EU-style

  1. Jonathan says:

    Once again Roger you are not being honest with people. The move to share the burden of inward immigration can only come into effect in the UK if the UK government approve it. If the Lisbon Treaty had been passed, MEPs would also have had full legislative co-decision on the issue (a double democratic test of both national governments and MEPs). Alongside this, the UK would only receive immigrants on a voluntary basis and is free to withdraw from the programme at anytime.

    However, I would advise all EU Member States to participate. Is it fair that Italy and Malta should bear the full weight of immigration from North Africa just because of their geographic proximity to Africa? Is it not fair and right that we help our friends on an EU-wide, coordinated and fair basis to deal with this issue? The additional €4000 per person would also help and encourage Member States to take part and assist with the upfront additional costs. However, we all know that migrants and refugees to the UK contribute much more than they take out – we should continue to welcome people like we always have.

    • alexei says:

      As someone who formerly lived in a London Borough where today only 7% of secondary schoolchildren are ethnically British, I would imagine if this happened anywhere else in the world it would cause some “concern” and would not be considered “unnatural” or unreasonable. But in our enlightened times, we are required not only to welcome it as ‘progress’ and an improvement on the past (now a dirty word), but to continue to accept with open arms however many more thousands might wish to follow suit, until……… what exactly? THAT 7% disappears altogether?

      Some schools boast of a range of over 100 languages spoken by their pupils but never explain exactly how that benefits the pupils’ education. Other areas are gradually catching up with Brent but still we are admonished for considering it a problem. Anyone daring to protest is slapped down as racist and new edicts are constantly being churned out to pre-empt any display of discontent.

      Many are unaware that with the new Euro-Mediterranean Partnership covering every state (i.e. North Africa) around the southern Mediterranean, the EU have assessed another 50 million immigrants will eventually need to be admitted into EUrope. Have they considered all the necessary additional infrastructure required?

      P.S. As for Jonathan’s disingenuous:- “………the burden of inward immigration can only come into effect in the UK if the UK government approve it.”

      Those of us who do not have our heads in the sand are fully aware that the intentions of the UK government have not been concerned in the slightest to limit immigration but on the contrary to tacitly encourage it to the extent that Britain is the preferred destination for many immigrants. Moreover, even if they opposed it, when have they shown any spunk in resisting any EU legislation? As for Lisbon facilitating governments’ freedom to act independently, Jonathan is either blind or willfully misleading.

  2. But our government did not veto it, Jonathan, (though the British people would have have wanted them to). And the Lisbon Treaty would make things worse. Southern MEPs would vote to send immigrants to Britain! No, it is not fair that we pick up the tab for other people’s problems. Nor is it true that immigrants necessarily give more than they take out — that’s uncorroborated Labour spin.

  3. Mr Helmer, your last two posts show yet again why we are better out of the EU. Pity Mr Cameron seems to be another puppet of the globalists.

    “Nor is it true that immigrants necessarily give more than they take out — that’s uncorroborated Labour spin.”

    Wonderful to see. Hope it doesn’t get picked up the wrong way. An immigrant, I believe, is twice as likely to commit a crime as a native. This is probably good in New Labour’s blind eyes.

    If a Romanian gypsy lesbian pickpockets you, don’t complain. Just love and rejoice in the increase in diversity!

  4. Owen Pugh says:

    Very truthful. Very honest. Just the sort of thing I expect to hear from an MEP represnting me hear in the East Midlands. Also reflects the work done by Christopher Caldwell over the last tgen years, compiled in his book ‘Reflections on the revolution in Europe’
    Like Rogert Helmer, it reveals the factys under the lies and hypocrisy of European bureacracy and spin-doctors from first hand reporting.

    If your local school now has to spend a quarter of its budget on translators, celebrate the diversity and the fact that these children are bringing in ‘jobs’ in the form of these translators. Although it would be perfectly true to say that the money could be better spent funding the education of the entire school rather than the children requiring translators, enabling it to progress in national league tables rather than be left scrabbling in the dust of Labour’s collapsed statue to Education.

  5. alexei says:

    Judging by his avatar, Jonathan appears to be the same individual posting at every opportunity on the DT blogs under the pseudonym “europarl-pse”, always singing the praises of everything related to the EU.

    As Roger states above, Labour’s p.c propaganda asserting that immigrants contribute more than they take collectively was effectively debunked by a House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee study, stating that when the full costs of the services to which they are entitled (NHS treatment, schooling, welfare, housing etc) are included immigration incurs a £5.6 billion loss.

    However, it is not an issue that should solely be weighed on the basis of shillings and pence, to quote a redundant expression. The impact on the indigenous populations’ way of life is a variable of equal if not greater importance and to claim that Britons should have no say in the matter reflects an undemocratic, tyrannical position.

    No one can blame the immigrants themselves for seeking a better way of life, but those who have not only allowed but facilitated and encouraged it should most definitely be held responsible. Just voting them out of power is quite inadequate as a penalty for the damage wreacked.

  6. Jabez says:

    Time to reduce the influence of the deplorable Saxe Coburg Unt Gothas immigrants, who are living on perpetual state benefits. Shall we send them back home UKIP?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s