Sunday, November 17, 2013
David Blunket's Enoch stance hypocrisy
It evokes a wry smile that Labour's deliberate multi-million migrant dumping programme has come back to bite former Home Secretary David Blunkett on his backside in his own backyard of the Sheffield Brightside constituency.
You know … that accidentally-on-purpose importation of millions for the risible 'reason' "to rub the noses of the Right in diversity", which Blunkett himself and now Jack Straw have pretended was merely a catastrophic 'mistake'.
The ideological nutters allowed themselves to be blinded as to a most basic universal human attribute: in-group/out-group psychology.
Far from just those who happen to be 'white' being averse to having their communities buggered up, ethnic minorities feel very much the same way about the places their influx effectively buggered-up. Surprise, surprise. Perhaps now the political-Left might reflect that the stereotype they made and hold of 'the workers' ('white' males) as the totem group object of their contempt and hatred, does not remove the fact that even 'whites' are human. Some hope. Apparently it's acceptable for an ethnic minority group to be on the verge of riot, when of course it is deemed never acceptable for 'whites' to so much as gather beneath an EDL banner. The PC-fascist's usual double-standard.
Migrants themselves always resent more recent migrants. That's why BBC Newsnight goes to canvass the views of more established migrants, such as Birmingham Asians, when they want to gauge the depth of negative reaction to yet further immigration.
Here in Sheffield, we now have one lot of migrants we never needed nor wanted resenting a newer lot of migrants we neither needed not wanted. Pakistanis, who arrived to man already over-manned and uncompetitive steel mills, resent Roma, who arrived to fill … actually no jobs that couldn't be filled by locals, if there are any jobs at all -- even assuming they don't prefer to work in the black economy, or not to work at all and just claim benefits (re which, btw, the Government hasn't a clue, because the DWP doesn't have a routine system to check migration status, and they don't bother to keep stats!). And Mr Blunkett might care to see how his Somalian buddies are regarded in places within his constituency they've made their little ghettos.
In Leicester, where I used to live before returning to South Yorkshire, it seemed to be some Asian groups resenting Bengalis (the latest wave of Asian influx); though more so Afro-Caribbeans resenting Asians – the only unmistakable racism I ever saw in inner city Leicester (the central Highfields area) was in local 'corner' shops, when some Afro-Caribbean individual would abuse a shopkeeper simply because he was Asian – a more recent migrant than those of her/his own group.
Of course, the overt antagonisms such as there is now in the Page Hall area of Sheffield is just the very tip of the iceberg of wholesale alienation driven in particular by mass immigration. A key driver of the withdrawal of consent for government to confiscate and redistribute, ultimately it drives everyone away from what Labour in particular supposedly stands for. So the PC-fascist contempt Lib/Lab/Con have for us all is self-perpetuating. These political fraudsters will always masquerade as more community orientated than the masses, in their exercise of elitist-separatism in the form of competitive altruism. It's only a matter of time, though, before 'the penny drops' and what hitherto has been merely the majority disengagement from politics morphs into more open hostility towards the political class and their apologists.
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Standard BBC disinformation re migration today: re the UCL report on migrants and tax paid / benefits claimed
As ever across the Boob, in today's TV and radio reporting (on the UCL report on migration), no account is being taken that .....
1. Official migration in no way reflects total migration.
UCL's 'Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration' is the same source as the bogus (serious under-)estimate (by Professor Salt) commissioned by Tony Blair of the total number of illegal migrants in the UK.
The estimate of 600,000 failed to include non-workers and dependents -- which would take it to over one million -- and Professor Salt used a wholly inappropriate international comparison measure (the ratio in other nations between total legals and the number of illegals coming forward in amnesties) to make the crude estimate, thereby ignoring the unique constellation of 'pull factors' driving migration to the UK -- the combination of EU-style welfare and US-style free labour market; the fact that the international second language is our own; that the UK has easily the most lax immigration system re entry/detection/removal in the developed world; etc.
The total number of illegal migrants here in the UK (unidentified overstayers, clandestine arrivals, and those with forged or fraudulent documentation) is in the millions, though how many millions it is very difficult to estimate; realistically something of the order of two or three million, and possibly more.
2. There is no basis to claims that migrants claim no more benefits than the UK born.
The DWP has no mechanism routinely to assess the migration status of benefits applicants, so there is no basis of any claims that migrants supposedly have a low propensity to claim benefits.
3. Migrants are of very different types, and lumping all of them together is highly misleading, and is propaganda against any attempt to control unwanted immigration.
Migration is heavily polarised between, on the one hand, those in the highly-skilled category and a proportion of others who come to the UK on a migration application stream obliging work; and those, on the other hand, who come here under various forms of 'family reunion' and other non-working application pathways, or ostensibly to work but either not to do so or to work in the 'black economy'.
Obviously, the distinct absence of recourse to benefits by the former masks the distinct propensity to claim benefits by the latter.
