Saturday, July 27, 2013

UK immigration system revelations

Over the past two days there have been three articles at the Daily Mail dealing with immigration into the UK.

The first revealed that under the Blair Labour Government 74 per cent of job vacancies were taken by overseas applicants. That has fallen a little under the Cameron Government but still stands at 55 per cent. That's in a country with a million unemployed people aged under 25.

One Tory MP has called for UK employers to hire UK workers. According to Matthew Hancock only 7 per cent of UK firms have an apprenticeship scheme; he's encouraging UK companies to train local young people rather than take the "easy option" of bringing in workers from abroad.

But his efforts are being undermined by the EU. Another Daily Mail article has pointed out that the EU pays UK firms almost $1500 for hiring an overseas worker instead of a local one.

The final revelation is that over the past ten years 470,000 immigrants into the UK have been provided with social housing, i.e. their housing has been paid for by taxpayers.

It's not supposed to be like this. Where is the sense of the UK as a national community if there is an absence of group loyalty? And where is the motivation to maintain a strong culture of family life and a strong work ethic if government and employers can just get people and workers from overseas at will?


  1. The Daily Mail is a wonderful news source.

  2. There is no group loyalty. Political policy represents the interests of large corporations which are seeking a limitless source of cheap labour and hence prefer less demanding immigrants over British workers . Their concern is executive bonuses and shareholder dividends not the average British person.

  3. People will say this is some drive by "big corporations", but really isn't this all according to Left Liberalism's plan -- compassion for the other, altruism? The Left Liberal elite not only have no loyalty to the subjects they rule, they actually despise them compared to foreigners. (Although they'd hate them too if they knew them as well.)

  4. I said "plan", but philosophy would have been a better word.

  5. No, there is no group loyalty.

    When talking about the UK's population, you have to ask yourself the following vital question:

    What proportion of the UK's native white people are the low class types who live in poor quality council housing, eat unhealthy food, drink heavily and smoke cigarettes, are poorly educated, get tattoos, swear often, talk in strong regional accents, are into drugs and crime, get violent with each other and with partners, are often unemployed, have lots of casual sex without using a condom leading to single motherhood, and in general look like they could be candidates for appearing on Jeremy Kyle?

    It's a significant proportion. And it's from this proportion of the population (often called chavs in England and neds in Scotland, but that's an oversimplification) that most support for right-wing policies exists.

    Middle class university educated liberals don't suffer from left-liberal policies so much, it's the underclass mainly that does.

    Whilst the ignorance of the underclass can be pretty tiresome, the arrogance of the middle class snobs is worse.

  6. So whilst the state of the underclass is living proof of the existence of dysgenics, the idea that the flipside of that is a bunch of Guardian readers is pretty horrific.

    I know I'm going into a little rant here but I hate the Guardian. So much left-wing garbage it's not even real!

  7. I read the Guardian just a few days ago. One of the columns was about border protection. The columnist's solution for this issue was not to have borders. Hard to take the paper seriously after that.

  8. Thats hardly surprising. Guardian columnists will stick up for terrorists and murderers provided they're non-white.