« | »

UK Immigration Used For More Diversity

From the UK’s (courageous) Telegraph:

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
23 Oct 2009

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right’s nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour’s immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

"But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland." …

These are some devastating charges. (And it looks like no one is refuting them.)

Of course the exact same thing could be said about what Mr. Kennedy’s 1965 ‘immigration reform’ did to the United States.

And, indeed, it should be said.

Here is the original article by Andrew Neather, Don’t listen to the whingers – London needs immigrants, which let this amazing little detail slip out.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, October 26th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “UK Immigration Used For More Diversity”

  1. proreason says:

    There ya go.

    Britain’s big problem, NAILED.

    Not enough Muslims.

    When you realize it, it’s so obvious.

  2. beautyofreason says:

    Yep, multiculturalism in a nutshell – blame whitey’s descendants for the wrongs of old world colonialism and punish that race’s descendants by insisting on a heterogeneous racial / ethnic / cultural blend drawn in a politically correct manner.

    Multiculturalism is racist and it is an attack on the shared language and principles of a people. It cares only for a panacea of diversity and never in furthering practicality or American interests. I have heard that Londoners can now take a train to certain regions and never hear English.

    I don’t hear liberals encouraging caucasians to move to Nigeria to spice up the culture, or Christians to immigrate to Islamic countries to provide a more balanced society. The strains of multiculturalism are uniquely directed at western societies with a caucasian majority.

    We are a nation of immigrants, most of whom are successfully integrated and who do well in society. Multiculturalism favors cultural niches and dislikes integration / assimilation. I don’t care about skin color but I do care about promoting a shared belief in freedom. Can’t do that if your new immigrants believe in Shariah law theocracies and will soon displace the old fashioned freedom lovers (one in three children born in France today is a Muslim child).

    I hate that we even have to discuss race or culture today. I would rather see people as individuals but multiculturalism demands that we place them in subgroups with competing value systems.

    As for Muslims in Europe – these psychos have their own ideas:

    Mohamed Ben Brahim Boukharouba, former President of Algeria:

    “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends…Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”

    Al-Jazeera’s Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi, a so-called moderate reformer in the West:

    “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor,” and “the conquest this time will not be by the sword but by preaching and ideology.”

    Omar Ahmad Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations:

    “Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam … Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

    • Helena says:

      So right, BofR, multiculturalism sounds like a good idea, but has unintended consequences. It creates a very lucrative niche for demagogues to make money by selling parananoia and separatism and hate. Take a look at every group that is eternally axe grinding and you find a Calypso Louie or mullah or otherwise self-proclaimed “spokesman” who is making a very tidy haul from that same group. He’s “protecting their interests” don’t you know, by keeping their purses available for himself alone. Multiculturalism invites these vermin to set up shop.

      And on the original topic of this thread, in today’s news: the Heritage Foundation has done a study showing specifically that Pakistani immigration to Britain is doing Britain the most harm terror-wise.
      BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan ‘key’ to UK terror plots
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8327139.stm

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      There comes a time when even the obvious is obscured by well-meaning academics. Why, in the very land of Britain itself the divisions of Scot, Irish, Welsh and Englander are still fairly well drawn. And remember that “thing” in Northern Ireland where two different divisions of the Church Of Christianity just could not get along?

      People divide themselves and I don’t care WHAT big fancy name anyone wants to call it, label or otherwise characterize it as, people have and WILL divide themselves along some sort of boundary, real or imagined.

      Now, when the government gets involved the only thing at issue here is the rights of ALL the people. That is, there is a system of laws that says, “Feel however you want, but just don’t harm one another” much the way a parent has to address their unruly kids on a long trip in the back seat of the car. And the laws have to be upheld and dispensed EQUALLY.

      For those who are present and don’t like that idea, tough s__t. Get out. Go back from whence you came and deal with your own previous form of government. Why did you come here to begin with? Why did you opt to play the game if you didn’t know the rules?

      And since they find that the government is a pushover for special considerations because of some perceived handicap of having a different heritage, they set themselves up to be perpetual victims and needy individuals. And the band plays on.

      Multiculturalism is only the veneer for the fact that people hate one another to begin with, regardless of reasoning. Sure, many get along, but many more don’t. Just the basic human instinct whereby competition is the eventual outcome creates the social structure. Everyone hates the rich banker down the street….got his fancy house and fancy car…phagh! And conversely, the well-to-do despise the less-well-off. “Oh how do they survive with that horrid set of clothes?” and so on.

      Christianity and by reflection, our system of laws, has us respect those innate differences in people, regardless of how we feel about them. That while in line at the movies, they have just as much right to be there as we do and vice-versa. Yet somehow, as is the ability of humans everywhere to game any system, they chip away at the very system that gives them that right to begin with, saying “I’m special, therefore I do not have to follow those rules” to which, when I was a kid anyway, the response would’ve been, “Oh yeah? Well, bull-shit. Get over there and play along or go home”.

      What I have been observing these past decades is that lack of authority to BE the authority under the false claim of racism, or some other phobic classification. It’s what happens when the teacher wants to be liked by all the students instead of wanting to teach and keeping them structured to do so.

      There really is nothing new under the sun here.

      I’m not saying hate your neighbor. You don’t have to love one another to get along. But it has to be enforced that each person respects the rights of others and that goes for immigrants as well as the natives. Australia, you may recall, had it right. Their PM said, “Respect our laws or get out”. Not a racist or unfair statement by any accounting. Simple, effective and true.

  3. Liberals Demise says:

    All I have to say is, “Have you limeys got enough muslim in your diets now?”

  4. Petronius says:

    Nuremberg established the precedent that leaders of a nation can be held individually accountable for their government’s policies, and be penalized as common criminals. This may include the sentence of death by hanging, a form of execution normally reserved for the lowest class of criminals.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »