Why do so many illegal immigrants / asylum seekers come to the UK? This is mostly after passing through many other countries on the way where they could (and legally should) have said that they were applying for political asylum. Is this just a coincidence? I think not!

Word has spread that, after so many years of political correctness, we are the country where they are likely to get the least trouble and the most people trying to help them. (You try asking a proper and pertinent question about immigration in this country and watch as up pop so many of the PC Brigade, all shouting 'racist' at you! You will need to have a very strong constitution to ask a second question!)

While I have never met any sane person who is against the principle of asylum, most people are fed up with it being abused by economic migrants. Every country in the world needs a proper immigration policy - usually along the lines of:
OK so you want to come to our country
1) Have you a job to go to?
2) Can you support yourself and your family and not expect us to support you?
3) Have you any nasty diseases you might give us or expect us to treat on our NHS?
Because the answer to 3) is very likely to be 'no', we should screen all immigrants anyway. This last point is particularly relevant as T.B. has made a come back into the UK.

Needless to say, the official politically correct view is that T.B. is not associated with immigration but rather with poor housing and social deprivation. But when a national daily paper put this view to a nurse working in a front line T.B. ward she dismissed their theories as well-meaning but part of the current culture of political correctness prevalent in our public services. The nurse, an immigrant herself, who has 20 years’ experience in the NHS, said: ‘Almost every TB patient that I nurse has either arrived from overseas in the past few years or recently visited their original home country for an extended visit and then returned here. Many are given perfectly good accommodation but still get TB because they contract it before they ever come to live in Britain.’

Despite the culture of politically correct denial, Dr Peter Davies, consultant chest physician at the Cardio-Thoracic Centre in Liverpool, has said there must be a public debate: ‘We have to overcome this taboo about race and TB and look at the facts. If we don’t act quickly, we could find the disease becomes as potentially deadly as it was in the Thirties.’ More recently, Lung specialist Professor Andrew Peacock of the British Thoracic Society said the society wanted greater use of mobile X-ray vans to target those groups at greatest risk.

Hence the obvious solution would be to test for the disease at Britain’s ports of entry but in our politically correct world, open discussion about what is causing the rise of tuberculosis is avoided for fear of being ‘racist’. A Blairite think-tank, the Institute of Public Policy Research, has even declared that compulsory chest X-rays and other health tests on all immigrants would be ‘morally’ wrong.

Yet in America, for example, which has a huge immigrant population from the TB hotspots of the world, they also found a few years ago the disease had made an unwelcome return. In 2000, almost half of all tuberculosis victims in the United States were born overseas. American officials immediately introduced health screening as a priority with millions of dollars spent on a pro gramme to prevent the spread of TB. ‘The only reasonable way to halt the importing of TB is to look for those who have it — and treat it,’ said a straight-talking report from the National Tuberculosis Centre in Newark, New Jersey. ‘People who come to the U.S. legally are required to have chest X-rays showing they have no active TB. If they do, they cannot be admitted.’ America also introduced skin tests among the immigrant communities to expose latent TB, which does not show up on a port of entry X-ray. Gradually, the rise in TB was halted before it became an epidemic. Between 1992 and 2002, cases in America almost halved to the lowest levels ever recorded. It was a triumph for the mass screening programme.

Another huge problem is AIDS. According to the Health Protection Agency, 44% of new HIV patients come from overseas. A large proportion of these come from just three countries - Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi. According to Professor Pat Troop, chief executive of the Health Protection Agency: ‘Each HIV infection prevented can save between £500,000 and £1 million in treatment and lost productivity.’ Taking the lower figure, the cost of cases just from these three countries comes to £750 million in one year — enough to build three new hospitals.

So what is the Government doing about all this? Absolutely nothing. This is where the masters of spin come in handy. If your policy is somewhere between hopeless and nonexistent, ignore the real doctors and reach for a spin doctor. A couple of years ago the Government set up a Cabinet Committee to examine the problem of Aids victims migrating to Britain — in other words to kick it into the long grass. But eventually it had to decide on a plan, so ministers met in November 2004 — and decided to do nothing. Forty-seven countries around the world require HIV tests of prospective immigrants — including the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Why don’t we?

But, of course, such a policy would mean acknowledging that we face a problem in the first place. So instead the Government is desperately trying to distract attention from it. It seems that it does not have the courage to face down knee jerk accusations of racism by publicly acknowledging that African immigrants account for such a large proportion of British Aids cases. In failing to do so, it is not only putting political correctness before public health but placing a massive burden on the NHS. This is, quite simply, outrageous. The Government has a clear duty to protect our health. It is not fulfilling it. (Information from Migrationwatch)

Thus asking all proper questions and taking appropriate action can protect our society. When people see that they are not being asked and Governments are not looking after our national interests is the very time that racism flourishes and obnoxious parties like the BNP gain their supporters. Again Political Correctness stands reality on its head and exacerbates the very problems they say they want to avoid.

The Government adds to the problem as well. It wants lots of immigrants to do the jobs we don't seem to want to do and also to work to pay our pensions when we are old. But being politicians, they hate to tell the truth and would much rather be devious. They fear what might be the reaction if they admitted this - apparently not realising that they are giving ammunition to the true racists in our society.

The Government has always denied that we are a soft touch but now the truth is out! John Gieve, permanent secretary at the Home Office said our laws were 'extremely generous' compared to other European countries. He also admitted that even when asylum seekers' applications were finally turned down, only a 'low level' were actually removed. It still takes the UK an average of two months to make an initial decision on an asylum claim compared to 48hrs in the Netherlands.

The system has also come under criticism from Mr Justice Collins. He harangued Human Rights lawyers who backed totally unmeritorious claims, obtaining legal aid for their clients and then blocked up the courts in an effort to delay the removals of failed asylum seekers from the country. (The legal aid bill for asylum cases cost the British taxpayers £204 million in 2004.) This is nearly 10% of the entire budget and is eight times higher than when President Bliar came to the throne in 1997. Spending by local authorities on asylum seekers has more than doubled under this Government. The burden on council tax payers has soared from £193million in 1998 to £398million in 2004, Local Government Minister Nick Raynsford said in response to a Parliamentary question. This one of the factors causing Council Tax to rocket - yet again, poor British people are losing out!

Even greater rises in council tax are likely in the future. Due to incompetent handling of how the immigration figures are counted, several councils have found their government grants reduced while actually experiencing an influx of immigrants. For example, the Government says the population has fallen by 3,000 in Slough, yet this is where 9,000 people – many of them Poles – applied for National Insurance numbers last year. So council tax payers will have to pay more while schools and social services struggle to cope.

Eastern Europeans were responsible for 14 per cent of fatal crashes in Yorkshire despite making up just 0.8 per cent of the population, a study shows. This figure is likely to rise as Yorkshire becomes more reliant on migrant labour, councillors there warned.

It doesn't seem to matter how you get here either. Long way to come? That's OK - just hijack an aircraft, wound the pilot - we will still let you stay! Eighteen of the twenty hijackers that hijacked three aircraft in 1982, 1996 and 2000 are still living in the UK. In the Afghan incident alone, the perpetrators served just one year in prison and the total cost to the British taxpayer is £37 million and rising! One hijacker now has 27 relatives living with him and drawing benefits.

In another scam recently to come to light, tens of thousands of immigrants are gaining work permits after posing as students or tourists to get into the UK. More than 73,000 permits were given out in 2004 to foreigners who were already in Britain on another pretext, but took advantage of a loophole allowing them to ‘switch’ their status. In 1998, the government stopped checking whether visitors actually leave the UK after their time is up. So really they have no more idea than the woman in the moon how many migrants / asylum seekers are actually here! What a shambles!

Most common sense observers predicted that immigration would rise even more when the EU threw itself open to the new member states in May 2004. The Government went to great lengths to portray these observers as scaremongers and dismissed these predictions out of hand stating that the amount coming would be 'minimal' and a 'trickle not a flood', with an absolute maximum of 13,000 immigrants a year being expected from these new eastern states. Now preliminary figures published by the Government itself shows that 10,000 immigrants a month came to the UK from these eastern states since May. This amounts to the Government underestimating the numbers by a factor of nine or ten! All of the figures fly in the face of the Government's claim to be tightening up on immigration. Even some Police forces have had to demand that the Government stops sending any more asylum seekers to their areas as, after several public order offences involving locals, they fear racial tension may go through the roof.

The forecasts for population growth in regions of England are published by the Office for National Statistics. Recent National estimates were published by the ONS said that of the projected 6.1million increase in population by 2031, 3.6million will be migrants. The Migrationwatch think-tank said that if migrants’ subsequent children were added, the increase from migration would be 5.1 million. Sir Andrew Green, director of Migrationwatch, said that the latest ONS estimates confirmed that the impact of immigration would be felt most strongly in southern England. He added: ‘Around 85 per cent of population growth is now due to immigration. This is why the government is piling on the pressure for the development of millions of ‘affordable’ new homes in the South East and East Anglia and why John Prescott has removed the strategic planning from County Council control and in to the hands of an unelected Quango.

In the run up to the 2005 election, Michael Howard, the Conservative leader raised the issue of immigration as a cornerstone of his manifesto. He promised to:

  • set an annual limit to immigration, including a quota for asylum seekers.
  • put in place 24-hour security at ports to prevent illegal immigration.
  • introduce an Australian-style points system for work permits - giving priority to people with the skills Britain needs.
  • tighten the immigration rules to stop sham marriages.
  • together our proposals will lead to a substantial reduction in the number of people settling in the UK.

All very sensible one might think. But within hours, a European Union spokesman popped up to point out that this would be illegal under European Law. Yet only three months before, the Prime Minister solemnly assured the nation that Britain still had ‘complete control' over its immigration policies. Indeed, we enjoyed ‘the best of both worlds' because ‘unless we opt in (to European rules) we are not affected by them'.

A red faced Downing Street spokesman was eventually forced to admit that in October 2004, former Home Secretary David Blunkett signed away Britain's veto over asylum, immigration and border control policies and over the past five years Britain has signed up to three EU directives designed to create a common European asylum system. These effectively cede control to Brussels over where asylum seekers should make their claims, how they should be treated, and how they qualify as refugees.

Michael Howard seized on Downing Street's admission and accused Mr Blair of ‘pulling the wool' over voters' eyes by giving away powers over asylum ‘by stealth'. He vowed to ‘bring back control over asylum from Brussels to Britain – where it belongs'. But of course, he lost the election.

Political correctness has caused the immigration policy of this Government to be a complete and utter shambles!

Delicious Delicious submit to reddit Stumble It! Share