Meny

Innvandring

Labour er ondskapsfulle, ikke inkompetente

Innvandringsdebatten i Storbritannia har tatt en ny vending etter at en fersk rapport fra Overhuset avkler regjeringens innvandringsretorikk som tom propaganda. Labour-regjeringen har argumentert for at innvandringen er både lønnsom og nødvendig, men rapporten viser at den i realiteten ikke er noen av delene. Til gjengjeld produserer den massive sosiale problemer. Nå hardner tonen i debatten: Labour regjeringens innvandringsregime kan ikke unnskyldes med inkompetanse, men har vært drevet frem av en ideologi om nasjonens dekonstruksjon og fremme av multikulturalisme – uansett konsekvenser. Dette hevder sentralt plasserte kommentatorer og analytikere i Storbritannia, og de sparer ikke på kruttet.

HRS

HRS

Publisert:

Jens Tomas Anfindsen, HRSBakgrunnPå slutten av sekstitallet mottok Storbritannia rundt 75 000 innvandrere i året. Dette falt til 50 000 i 1971 og til 37 000 i 1997, og nedgangen skyldes restriktive tiltak fra myndighetenes side. Men så kom Labour og Tony Blair til makten. Akkurat som Norges Kjell Magne Bondevik, mente Blair at kristen nestekjærlighet krever en liberal innvandringspolitikk. Kort tid etter at Blair overtok, skjøt således innvandringen opp til flere hundre tusen i året. Konsekvensene er nå massive integreringsproblemer og overbelastning, mange steder kollaps, av statens velferdstjenester. Oppvekstmiljø og trygget er sterkt forverret for store deler av den opprinnelige befolkningen i landet.

Dette har ført til såkalt ”white flight”, et fenomen som nærmest fungerer som bensin over den demografiske bomben. Samtidig som 710 000 innvandrere kom til Storbritannia i 2007 (574 000 i 2006), valgte mer 200 000 etniske briter å forlate landet. De fleste av de som drar, er høykvalifiserte arbeidere som har større tro på fremtiden i Canada eller USA. Undersøkelser viser at deres motiver for å forlate sitt hjemland har en fellesnevner: hverdagslivet i Storbritannia er mange steder blitt uutholdelig. Lokalsamfunnene fragmenteres av etniske motsetninger og raseres av lovløshet.

I september i fjor advarte Commision for Racial Equality, som ellers er kjent for å være politisk korrekt nok, at Storbritannia er i ferd med å brytes opp langs etniske skillelinjer. Religiøse og politiske ledere i landet advarer om islamistisk forfølgelse og trakassering av annerledes troende og tenkende.
Dette er altså dagens Storbritannia. Og dette er altså hva den kristne Tony Blairs nestekjærlighet og landets arbeiderpartiregjering (Labour) har greid å trumfe igjennom, stort sett uten plagsom innblanding fra det britiske folket, og godt flankert av tidsåndens relativisme, multikulturalisme og politisk korrekthet.

Ny rapportOverhusets rapport om innvandring, som ble fremlagt mandag, markerer et vannskille i britisk innvandringsdebatt, hevder Sir Andrew Green, formann i tankesmien MigrationWatch, som i årevis har advart mot utviklingen:

Now, at last, after the first major inquiry of its kind in this country, our view has been endorsed by the considered verdict of one of the most heavyweight committees of Parliament, including, as it does, two former Chancellors, a former Governor of the Bank of England, and several distinguished economists as well as captains of industry and finance.

The committee’s findings are devastating. The report takes each of the arguments that the Government has been putting forward for years, and tears them to shreds one by one. It is a watershed in the debate on immigration.

Most pertinently, the Government’s key claim that immigration increases Britain’s overall gross domestic product (GDP) is dismissed as «irrelevant and misleading» – even though, as the report points out, it is a claim that has been «persistently emphasised».

Far from focusing on GDP, the report says, the real issue is whether immigration has boosted income per head of population; and concludes that the effects on per capita income are «very small, whether positive or negative».

So if the Government’s principal argument in favour of unprecedented immigration – namely that it has made us individually richer – is found to be disingenuous, how can it justify the extra 2.5 million immigrants it has permitted to enter Britain on its watch? Particularly in the light of the all-too-evident strains on public services that this influx has caused.

Heller ikke argumentet om at innvandringen sikrer britenes pensjoner holder vann:

How about the Government’s claim that, because we are an ageing population, we need immigrants to provide the wealth that will pay our pensions?

This, too, is dismissed with contempt. It «does not stand up to scrutiny,» says the report, for a reason that should be obvious to the Government: namely that immigrants themselves grow old and draw pensions.

Overhusets rapport er intet mindre enn knusende, hevder Sir Andrew Green, og dens funn bidrar til å kaste tvil over ærligheten ved de motiver som har drevet frem den liberale innvanndringspolitikken, tross velbegrunnede advarsler:

Taking the report as a whole, it is hard to imagine a more comprehensive demolition of the Government’s case for massive levels of immigration – a policy pursued in the face of deep public concern.

Why then has it taken so long to blow these false government claims out of the water?

Part of the answer lies in a widespread reluctance even to discuss immigration.

A recent Newsnight poll of white British adults found that 77 per cent felt that they could not criticise immigration without being labelled racist. Times are now changing, thank goodness, but the multicultural enthusiasts have had it all their own way for far too long.

Why has the Government continued to pursue its immigration policy when it must have known that it was deeply flawed?

Some ministers may have believed their own propaganda on multiculturalism. Others, notably Gordon Brown at the Treasury, were keen to see impressive economic growth figures (yes, Britain’s GDP does improve with increased immigration but, as the committee itself pointed out, not income per head). And, of course, it helps to keep inflation down to have a ready supply of cheap labour from overseas.

Furthermore, the importation of skills covered up the Government’s own failures over the education and training of Britain’s workforce.

One has to ask, too, whether there could be a political aspect. Immigrant communities are predominantly Labour voters. If they had all been budding Conservatives, one wonders whether the situation would have been allowed to continue for so long.

Kommentatoren Simon Heffer i the Daily Telegraph bruker enda hardere skyts, og i dagens avis fremmer han påstanden: ”Labour er ondskapsfulle, ikke inkompetente”; Labour is malignant, not incompetent. Heffer er hard i tonen, men analysen er skarp. Han hevder at labour-regjeringen bevisst har trumfet igjennom et marxistisk-inspirert, ideologisk program, uten hensyn til dets praktiske og etiske konsekvenser.

Despite the sheen of reason that Gordon Brown and, before him, Tony Blair and their chums have sought to put on all they do, this Government has had dark motives from the start.

It has followed policies deliberately that have enabled it to pursue its own political agenda – and this has always been a deeply politically motivated government in the way that Lady Thatcher’s was, and that John Major’s wasn’t – and irrespective of some of the dire consequences that might flow from those policies.

The element of deliberation and deliberateness in what Labour has done makes an accusation of incompetence, or carelessness, seem wide of the mark. Things were meant to be this way.

Labour has pursued policies, be they social or economic, for ideological reasons: and when they fail, as so many have, it has not been because of slipshod administration. It is because that was how things were always going to work out.

I mention this in the specific context of the House of Lords report on the benefits – or lack of them – of mass immigration. The theory applies, however, to much else, immediate or not.

Mistanken om bevisst kynisme og ondskap fra labour-regjeringen sin side, oppstår på bakgrunn av et veldig enkelt spørsmål: Hvorfor mente Labour at innvandringen ikke skulle reguleres, på tross av høy arbeidsledighet og et stort arbeidskraftspotensial i den britiske befolkningen?
With one and a half million unemployed, perhaps the same again on nebulous «training schemes», and about three million on incapacity benefit – many of whom would, if asked, be fit for non-manual work – the idea that we have so small a pool of labour here that we must borrow from abroad is simply preposterous.
That does not stop Mr Byrne from saying the opposite. He must. He has to cover up for the deliberate decision taken at the time when Jack Straw was Home Secretary, and maintained (though he often protested to the contrary) by his successor, David Blunkett, that immigration controls should not be enforced.
Why was this decision taken? It was because of a doctrinally driven determination by the new Government in 1997 to destroy our national identity and to advance multiculturalism.
Det å i det hele tatt se denne påstanden på trykk i europeisk riksmedium, skrevet av en sentralt plassert kommentator, er noe av en opplevelse for en som har fulgt innvandringskritiske blogg-medier gjennom de senere år. Der har konspirasjonsteoretiske spekulasjoner av presis denne art har florert.

Ambisjonene på vegne av den post-nasjonale, multikulturelle ideologien, har vært koblet med en hensynsløs kynisme, hevder Heffer:

The Government had blithely ignored torrents of stories in the press about the inflow of «asylum seekers», who, in the days before the former Soviet bloc entered the EU, came here purely for economic reasons, and not because of any fear of persecution. Ministers – Mr Blunkett was especially good at this – started to talk about the impending mass deportation of illegal immigrants, but it never happened.
It was hard enough to find the political will to throw out those inciting terrorism and racial hatred against the indigenous Christian community, never mind removing those who were comparatively harmless.

So now, confronted with hard evidence that immigrants add a matter of pence each to our economic growth, while putting impossible strains on housing, transport and social services (and particularly in the south-east of England), Labour has to find excuses.

Mr Byrne’s seemed to be that what happened was all very successful, so successful that it might have to stop. You will not hear him admit that it was a plan by Labour ideologues to shake up society, and to pursue the movement’s traditional internationalism, in a cynical and determined way.
For liksom virkelig å rasere landets britiske nasjonalkarakter sørget også Labour for at de, parallelt med importen av fattige og lavt utdannede arbeidere, senket læringskravene i sine egne skoler, for å slik å uthviske klasseskillene mellom nye og gamle befolkningsgrupper i landet, og fremme et marxistisk, egalitært samfunn.
So, too, for a further example, was education policy. A Marxist-driven philosophy of anti-elitism forced down standards: but if the level of attainment required to pass a public examination is forced down too, then, voilà! we all look much cleverer than we used to be.

The results of this only become apparent when the halfwits produced go out and try to run something, such as getting our railways repaired on time, or even Terminal 5.

Mr Brown also had a policy of making fathers redundant in families, by downgrading the state’s respect for marriage, and providing a career structure for single mothers that included state-provided childcare.