Julia Mclean challenges Britain’s immigration laws and suggests that there are some serious economic consequences for immigration laws that do not protect the citizens of Britain.
A recent case in the British newspapers has aroused anti-immigrant feelings which is not hard to do in a small country where the green and pleasant land is being gobbled up to make housing for the multitudes arriving on this pearl set in the silver sea.
The case in question is that of a 54-year-old Indian woman who is importing her husband into England to work in a factory. He is 58 and speaks no English. England’s Prime Minister David Cameron, in response to all those Brits who feel that the least our immigrants can do is make a stab at the language (instead of at us or our shopkeepers) had just proposed altering our immigration laws to make them point dependant as in Canada or Australia.
In the Canadian system, people are allowed in if the country needs their skills, plus they speak the lingo, plus they have a sponsor plus a heap of other rules to deter the lazy and those on the make. We have vast swathes of Britain occupied by people who not only do not speak our language but never even attempt to. This woman is taking Britain to court for breaching her human rights by insisting the husband learn some English before he arrives. He is too old to learn according to her. In two years time he will be old enough to qualify for a pension and because he hasn’t earned enough, he will have an income supplement to provide for his family.
Old people’s residential care is a disgrace, medical care is worse; we are threatening to remove Caesareans from a hospitals’ routine practice and certain new drugs are being withheld from patients as the system cannot afford them. I quote at length Rod Liddle’s recent comment in The Times. “One of the pleasures of reading our tabloids is the regular appearance on about page five of an unemployed, newly arrived Somali family photographed beaming with pride outside the £2m house just given them by some witless borough council.” According to Liddle, the Somalis are beaming in the photograph because they think, in their naivety, that the newspaper “wished to exult with them in their good fortune, rather than portray them as feckless, scrounging jackanapes who shouldn’t be here at all.“
He goes on to say that “a new study suggests that we will need an extra 415,000 homes to house immigrants over the next 25 years; meanwhile the old canard that we need immigrant labour to pay for our pensions was comprehensively demolished even before the latest unemployment figures showed that one in five 16- to 24- year-olds was out of a job. There is decent moral argument in favour of immigration, but not an economic argument and we should stop pretending that there is.” The British Government spends a fortune on translating its documents into the multitudinous languages that our immigrants speak and have, only now, started to insist that a minor grasp of our language should be a requirement.
My husband and I are off to Tunisia in October, where I shall be ordering my coffee with just enough sugar and tea with milk in Arabic. I have learnt enough to be able to introduce my husband by saying what sounds like ‘Haada jowsie’ and he has to learn to say ‘Haadi marti’(this is my wife). If I can do this in my 3 score years and 10, I am sure some semblance of English can be learnt by a canny fifty eight year old who does, at least, know on what side his bread is buttered.
Further Rod Liddle Reading:
Photo Credit
Courtesy of Julia McLean
Please Share Your Thoughts - Leave A Comment!