We call for you to sign below to say you reject this “open borders” nonsense and call for Britain to take control of our borders, via a points-based migration system, to which the only concession could be for our brethren in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
We are disappointed to see the IEA, a prominent well-funded British think tank, which influences government policies, wasting money on a pro-EU ‘free movement’ pamphlet by a Phillipe Legrain, none other than a former adviser to European Commission president José Manuel Barros. There is no neutrality here, for he was the head of the team providing the President Barros with strategic policy advice, who arrogantly describes anyone questioning migration policy as “ignorant”. Rather there is a clear bias, as the pro-EU language pours off the pages.
Unreasonable Implication that Brexit Vote was Driven by Xenophobia:
The very first statement is a blatant myth, with the Remoaner bitterness being visible, as Legrain claims incorrectly that the main reason Britons voted for Brexit is hatred of migrants, when in reality, it was because we want British people to make British laws, and not some corrupt politburo that squanders our hard-earnt money. We never called for an end to immigration; no, merely for a fair, reasonable, points-based system, just like Australia has.
The former EU bigwig ignores that it’s inherently racist to have an open door with 27 predominantly white countries while making Asians and Africans pay a fortune for visas and meet strict criteria. They call for the “government to scrap the arbitrary migration target and maintain bilateral free movement with the EEA block, whatever our future relations with the EU” – a system which is inherently prejudiced. Our economy has a shortage of doctors and engineers, due to a broken education system, but it doesn’t have an urgent need for unskilled workers.
We may be about to leave the EU, but here we see a last-ditch attempt to save as much of the Brussels system as possible. The idea here is that we may go through the formality of Brexit, but we must keep in place the EU structure, even if not in name, that being the single market and freedom of movement – two things that Britons clearly voted to reject. They ignore that we voted Leave because we don’t want the corrupt quasi-liberal EU telling us what to do, and not because of xenophobia.
Lowering of Wages:
Therefore, it is bizarre for the IEA to demand that the government “scrap bureaucratic practices like visa grants and move to a skills-neutral, work-permit system”. High migration is promoted by the quasi-liberal elite simply because it means more people competing for jobs and this wage compression, cheaper workers, which benefits businessmen. The supply-demand ratio means simply that the more people competing for work, the lower wages will be.
It features the patronising phrase “they are willing to do low-skilled and unpopular, but necessary jobs”, seemingly alluding to that media myth that British people are too stuck-up and lazy to do unskilled work. The reality is that British workers are refusing to work illegally on less than minimum wage, or to tolerate terrible housing, such as three men sharing a room, that some migrants would accept. Whether it is the moving of factories to China, where people work 7 days a week, 20 hours a day, for a pittance, or the moving of unskilled migrants to the UK, this is all a desire by businesses to drive down wages. These are the conditions of the Victorian slums that we rose up against in the name of liberty.
It makes a passing suggestion of possible “free-movement deals with countries such as Australia and New Zealand“, countries with which we share a common language, GDP, monarch, legal system, and heritage, while dogmatically insisting that we keep an open border with the EU, simply due to geography. The reality is that an open border with a country of a similar GDP level, such as Canada, the shores of which are no further away from us than Bulgaria or Romania, would not result in an influx of unskilled migrants, and thus wouldn’t compress wages and benefit businesses. It is clear that the only focus behind these quasi-liberal ideas on open borders is to lower wages for the wealthy elite, and not to consider the needs of the British lower-middle and working classes.
Pressure on Public Services Ignored:
This pro-establishment booklet makes wild claims such as that “migrants can create jobs as well as take them just like any other UK citizen.” Most migrants do not set-up businesses that create jobs, and regardless, considering we have already high unemployment, we need more jobs not more workers. Also consider that any given immigrant, quite rightly, will seek a job presumably immediately, whereas the expansion of infrastructure and business necessary to create jobs that can be credited to immigration ordinarily takes longer. In the meantime, there is considerable pressure on the jobs market, and indeed public services.
The quasi-liberal paper then states the issue is not migration levels but the rate at which infrastructure is expanded, as if such doesn’t come at a cost to taxpayers. You’d think housing, schools and so on just fall out the sky and cost nothing. The paper claims that the UK is not experiencing ‘mass immigration’ – relative to the UK population of 65 million, the net migration rate was 0.51 per cent in 2015. 65 million x 0.0051 = 331,500. Roughly four times the city of Bath. Use of percentage is a crude attempt to obscure the quantity involved and the incredible pressure on public services that are already failing the British populace.
It reaches a peak of peculiarity when it states the UK is not full because 75% is agricultural land, as if to suggest perhaps Mugabe-style land seizures, ignoring of property rights, to build flats on British farmers’ land so as to house the world. Straw man. Consider capacity of built-up areas, which needs to be increased at an accommodating rate, not total land, unless we are to expect migrants to camp out in the countryside. Not to mention the question of whether further expansion of built-up areas, particularly into green belt land, is actually desirable.
Bizarre Hailing of Scandinavia as the Model to Aspire to:
This curious booklet calls for Britain to “establish a similar system to that of Sweden” – the rape capital of the world; the country where radical third-wave feminists say they would rather be raped by immigrants than helped by local authorities. There has been much media coverage of the horrific crimes that have occurred in Scandinavia due to laid-back border controls which have allowed dangerous persons to move in unchecked.
Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the USA. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped. (“Sweden: Summer Inferno of Sexual Assaults,” by Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone Institute, August 13, 2016.) Surely if anything, the trouble our Nordic neighbours have faced shows the need more than ever to have sensible, reasonable control of our borders, to ensure our safety.