European Action Immigration Policy by Dermont Clark
[Dermont Clark is a former Union Movement organiser and speaker from Cambridgeshire. In the early
1970s he was a main speaker at “Action Party” conferences until it reverted to “Union Movement” after
a couple of years. He later played a role in the Action Society. He is now an enthusiastic supporter of European Action, the
successor to the movement’s Action]
The policy of Union Movement, the post Second World War political party
of Oswald Mosley, put the emphasis on humane repatriation of immigrants. This was perfectly possible in the 1950s and the
1960s because by 1958 the West Indian population had only reached 125,000 and by the late 50s the total number of blacks in
Great Britain was 192,000 (or less than 0.5 per cent of the population).
However, as we entered the 1980s the demographic
changes were being set permanently, and here and now in the 21st Century we must accept that any idea of coerced repatriation
is neither possible nor morally defensible. Our immigrant population has established itself, for the most part regards itself
as truly British and plays an important part in just about every part of our national life.
Just for a moment consider
the policy of some “patriotic” British political parties who would repatriate the entire non-European immigrant
population over a ten or fifteen year term. The question is, how? If 25,000 sat down in the middle of London the state does
not have the manpower to move them, nor the facilities to house them.
Are we to return to the occasional stupid and shameful
excesses of the British Raj in India when troops were summoned to move protesters and ended up firing with both small arms
and artillery on the hapless natives, killing hundreds of mainly old men, women and children?
Or do we wish the rest
of the world to judge us from the comfort of their living rooms as they see on their TV screens Balkan type ethnic cleansing
and huge camps full of huddled masses awaiting deportation back to countries that they no longer know as “home”?
This would be racism and bigotry of the worst kind.
In his book, “My Life”, Sir Oswald Mosley says, “I
have always stood against the exploitation of the old colonialism, the placing of one people on top of another on grounds
of alleged superiority or inferiority, which is the only rational definition of racialism and which I reject”.
The
Editor and contributors to European Action consider Oswald Mosley to have been a politician and philosopher of great vision
and often decades ahead of his contemporaries in his planning for and aspirations of Europe a Nation, but we also feel the
need to interpret his ideas in the contemporary context, bearing in mind that many things change over the years.
Let
us try now and relate to the present day, and the difficulties that we face in regard to the many issues surrounding immigration.
The Government of the day has a moral obligation to protect and secure the borders of the United Kingdom and a National Party
of Europe has the same obligation over its boundaries.
The people have a right to expect their Government to protect
them also from people in their midst who would break the laws of the land and/or wish to do them harm, and also the right
to expect equal treatment. The Government should wisely and carefully use the revenues that it raises to manage their Public
Services.
It is now common knowledge that “New Labour” and the Home Office have lost total control of our
borders. They have no idea how many people who shouldn’t be in the UK are living here (their estimate is some 400,000
but it could be more) and, as highlighted in a recent TV documentary, because of pressure from Number 10, the immigration
officials are being forced to ignore the deportation of dangerous foreign criminals in order to meet targets.
So called
“political correctness” means that unfair discrimination is being used to advantage some people over others based
on their ethnicity. This is morally wrong and completely stupid. The idea that an applicant’s ability to do a job is
of less importance than his or her racial background, etc. is bound to deliver lower rather than higher standards.
In
the same way, because of poorly drafted laws, many of which have been pushed through to meet this Government’s deadlines
of a new scheme or incentive every month or so, there has sprung up a whole legal “industry” to try and manipulate
the system to the advantage of immigrants and asylum seekers who are not truly entitled to be in this country, all of which
is funded through Legal Aid.
What then are the solutions (solutions that are required not just by white voters but right
across the racial mix of our voting public)?
Firstly, procedures must immediately be put in place and given substantial
backing to detain in custody and to return to their country of origin all immigrant criminals who have abused the hospitality
of our country, and anyone who has been found guilty of any crime that potentially carries a prison sentence should be deported.
Given that the cost of keeping a convict in prison is more expensive than putting them up in a four star hotel, it would
seem sensible that these criminals serve their time back in their true homeland, rather than in the UK. This would also free
up spaces in our increasingly over-full prisons. This is most easily achieved by subsidising the cost of the imprisonment
in their country of origin.
Virtually every other democracy in the world has a limit to the number of immigrants that
it will accept in any given year, often broken down into specific numbers from individual countries. Indeed, one of the reasons
for West Indian migration to the UK was the 1952 McCarren-Walter Act that changed the rules originally permitting some 65,000
British Commonwealth citizens to come to America each year, to restrict the number of Caribbeans to only 800.
In addition,
many countries will give preference within their quota to specified trades and professions (say, builders and doctors) and,
in addition, will often apply other requirements such as the need to pass medical examinations, often a requirement (especially
for older applicants) to post surety against the cost to the state of any medical treatment and an exclusion from any Social
Security benefits for, say, the first three years.
All of that seems perfectly sensible and reasonable. I can understand
that families living in the UK want to bring over their elderly parents and their siblings. As long as they fall within the
allotted quotas and do not cost the taxpayer any money, I have no objections. If we wanted to go to the United States or Australia,
the same conditions would apply irrespective of race or colour.
Asylum seekers are a particularly difficult area because,
while one does not want to return the genuine applicant to a country where they are likely to be abused or tortured, the system
is very muddled and unclear.
This encourages “shyster” lawyers to challenge decisions to repatriate their
clients and to “play the system” by telling those claiming the right to settle here to falsely claim they are
from such and such a country “because under Human Rights legislation they can’t send you back”. The enormous
cost of all this comes out of the Legal Aid budget funded by you and me, the taxpayers.
This needs a root and branch
overhaul, with clear and definitive rules, which should include the needs for claimants to prove their identity and country
of origin with, if necessary, citizens of certain countries being excluded from entry into the UK. This would make the administration
of requests for asylum simpler and more straightforward and eliminate much of the huge cost of court action and counter-action.
Finally, what should happen to the half million or so immigrants in this country illegally? Mass deportation seems impractical
at best, and as many of these people have settled into our society and contribute to our economy others have suggested an
amnesty. I reject the concept of amnesty because these people are here illegally, but as they are located I do believe that
the Immigration Service should take into consideration how they have conducted themselves and their circumstances.
The
first option would be some form of license to stay and work in the UK without granting any rights of citizenship (similar
to how Germany after the Second World War recruited necessary immigrant labour from Turkey). After a suitable period of time,
and dependent on how they conducted themselves in our society, full citizenship could follow while, of course, all the “bad
apples” would immediately be sent packing.
Rather than playing the “race card” or, on the other hand,
surrendering our control of our borders and sovereignty to the masses who would descend on our land if given half a chance,
I believe that a serious and practical solution based on fairness and justice in the best interests of all our citizens irrespective
of their race, colour or creed is both a necessity and a duty that a government of which a National Party of Europe was a
member would not hesitate to implement.
