The Problems

These topics - immigration, asylum and racism - are so sensitive that some people are even afraid to discuss them. That cannot be right, as even Tony Blair conceded just before the 2005 election. But we must address them, for these among many reasons:

1) The numbers of immigrants, asylum-seekers and illegal entrants to Britain have greatly increased in the past 10 to 15 years

2) Opinion poll surveys in the last decade consistently show that around 80% of all British people, and well over 50% of ethnic minorities, want to see the scale of immigration significantly reduced.

In case there is any misunderstanding about our views - and especially because we suggest below that, for a time at least, the scale of immigration into Britain must be substantially reduced - let us place the following on record:

1. We welcome, as does any sensible country, immigration of people, at a reasonable rate, who want to be ‘part of it’ and contribute to the prosperous, peaceful, freedom-loving country that has been built up over centuries by generations of British people and is such a popular destination and refuge for many from overseas

2. We oppose all forms of discrimination based on colour of skin or ‘race’. In fact, we regard ourselves as all of one race - the human race

3. We believe that Britain should welcome all genuine refugees - but only so long as other countries also take their fair share.

A balanced view on immigration and asylum - the Popular Alliance position

We take what we believe to be a balanced, sensible and moderate approach. We welcome those immigrants who want to fit in and can make a contribution to British society, whilst at the same time (a) ensuring that we keep out terrorists and criminals and (b) allowing people to come here only at a sensible rate that we can absorb without problems.

Having said above that a reasonable rate of controlled immigration benefits us; we identify the following concerns, which are now shared by many:

1. Immigration is over-populating our island until around 15 years ago; the net annual increase from immigration into Britain was around 50,000. That is, every year, around 50,000 more came into Britain than left it. Even that was a high rate compared with most other countries.

But since then, the net rate has risen to around 250,000 (quarter of a million) a year. Like 80% of Britons, we say this is now far too high and out of control. This number is equal to a town the size of cities like Nottingham and Leicester and means building a city the size of Birmingham every five years.

It’s easy - if you’re unbiased - to see some of the problems caused by mass immigration:

a) the already overcrowded South East is becoming still more overcrowded and congested

b) there is widespread opposition to the proposed building of over half a million homes in the east of England, many of them needed because the Labour government plans to continue with mass immigration over the next 25 years

c) homelessness has more than doubled under Labour. We need to reverse that appalling statistic. Reducing immigration will reduce the pressure. London in particular is the most popular destination for migrants in the world - five times more popular than the rate for the USA as a whole and over twice the rate for New York, the most popular US destination. There is a severe overcrowding, homelessness and unemployment rate of over 10% in many London boroughs.

d) a water shortage has been caused because the Labour government - unbelievably - admits it failed to take into account the effect of huge population increases on water supplies

e) schools become overcrowded and unsettled as large number of immigrant children need school places

f) hospitals and the health services are placed under strain. A recent report suggested that infection rates in some parts of Britain are now at ‘third world’ levels - and that rates of tuberculosis - once nearly eliminated in Britain - have risen substantially. Official figures show that much of this is caused by immigration from Africa and Asia

g) the recent migration of so many people from Eastern Europe - most of whom, it must be said, are excellent workers - has kept down wage rates and forced many native people out of work

2. Illegal immigration

The best estimate is that there are up to half a million illegal immigrants in Britain, maybe more. Some have false passports and have gained National Insurance numbers by deception.Some are illegal 'over stayers'. Some are asylum-seekers who have been refused asylum and evaded deportation.

Then there is the problem of the exploitation of illegal immigrants. Greedy employers like gang masters and Rachman-type landlords often exploit illegal immigrants. The deaths of Chinese people in a lorry some years ago and the more recent tragedy of the cockle-pickers in Morecambe Bay brought these problems to light, but there are many other examples of illegal immigrants being exploited.

3. The problem of multiculturalism

People have been confused about whether ‘the multicultural society is a good thing’. Even Sir Trevor Phillips, the boss of the Commission for Racial Equality, concedes that it has been a mistake. He can now see what others have pointed out long ago - that we need a cohesive society where people from very different cultures can maintain their traditions but must also ‘fit in’ with the dominant culture if they want to be ‘part of it’ and maintain our tolerant tradition.

The recent riots in Oldham and the subsequent report by Sir Herman Ouseley revealed a disturbing pattern of community segregation in Oldham, a feature of other northern towns and parts of London. An updated report on Oldham published in May 2006 said that the community remained deeply divided along racial lines. A report on Peterborough in 2004 revealed significant community tension due to mass immigration there over the last decade.4.

The problem of ‘white flight’‘

White flight’ is a controversial phenomenon and a controversial phrase to use, but commentators and academics to describe the process whereby tens of thousands of native Britons are deserting the inner cities and moving out to suburbs or to new estates in the countryside are now using it. That is a potentially damaging process whereby different ethnic and racial groups start living apart from each other in their own closed communities. That is a recipe not for social cohesion but for social disintegration. We must arrest that process in the interests of us all.

5. Asylum

During the past year in particular it has become clearer than ever that our system of asylum is completely out of control. Intended to be a system for admitting only genuine refugees, who meet the criteria of the Geneva Convention on refugees fleeing persecution, it has descended into chaos. The following problems with asylum are now openly admitted:

a) that up to 90% of all asylum-seekers are not genuine refugees under the Geneva Convention criteria and are therefore bogus asylum-seekers. They are economic migrants, in search of a better life

b) the cumbersome system for processing asylum-seekers means that an estimated £2 billion a year is spent plus and estimated 1 billion in upkeep - we in the Popular Alliance would say wasted - on endless immigration appeals. The money goes to immigration lawyers, judges and all sorts of immigrant advisory groups. We currently grant refugee status - or grant exceptional leave to remain - to about 14,000 asylum-seekers a year, at an estimated cost of about £143,000 per successful asylum-seeker. Yet we spend only £2.50 per refugee on genuine refugees in other parts of the world. That is not a sustainable or honourable policy

c) even where immigration appeals are unsuccessful, up to half a million failed asylum-seekers have simply disappeared into the community. They may well have got jobs and started to fit in to their local community. But the fact remains that they have no legal right to be here - unlike immigrants who have used normal, legal procedures to come here

d) very few asylum-seekers whose claims are rejected are deported

e) foreigners commit a disproportionate number of serious crimes. Many are still not deported even after serving long sentences for serious crimes

f) we are noted the world over for being a ‘soft touch’ where asylum seeking is concerned. It is time for us to take a more robust, approach.

6. Citizenship

Becoming a British citizen is a privilege sought by many, the world over. It is a privilege, and not a right. It should be granted only to those who have something to contribute to this country, who want to be ‘a part of it’ - and who will be loyal to their adopted country. At present, all you need to become a British citizen is three years’ residence, some knowledge of English, and then the routine swearing of a short oath of allegiance to the Queen before a Solicitor.

Immigrants who have committed crimes in the last 5 years should not be entitled to become British citizens.

7. Racism

Racism - in the sense of having a hatred or active dislike of others simply because of the colour of their skin, or for example their religion, is always unacceptable. However, the activities bodies like the Commission for Racial Equality, local Community Relations Centres and other offshoots of the race relations industry are, regrettably, unable to stem all forms of racism. The numbers of racial incidents in Britain has been steadily rising, not falling - which proves their ineffectiveness. And racism, where it exists, takes many forms: white against black, black against white, black against Asian and vice versa, even one black tribe against another, as was highlighted in a special report in the Observer in June 2006.

The problem, we say again, has been the lack of government control over immigration. Too many people from very different cultures have come here too quickly. They need time to settle down, assimilate, and become part of British culture. We do nobody any favours by failing to control immigration and asylum.

8. The European Union and Immigration

Being in the European Union ties our hands in many ways when it comes to exercising proper control over the numbers of would-be immigrants and asylum-seekers coming here. A country that cannot control its borders is no longer an independent state. Being in the E.U. means that anyone from another E.U. country can simply pitch up here and claim benefits. We need to exercise proper control over how many people come here from other E.U. countries - and the larger the E.U. becomes, the greater this problem will become.

One of the founding principles of the E.U., is the ‘free movement of labour’, which sounds fine in principle. But if it means that too many people from other E.U. countries flood into Britain, some of them claiming our generous welfare benefits and others causing the depression of wage-rates, which is not helping. If there are genuine labour shortages in specific areas of the economy, by all means let us encourage immigration of suitably qualified people to fill those posts. But if it means that British people are pushed out of a job in favour of immigrant who will take jobs at lower pay, often below minimum wage rates, then we do not support it.

Staying in the E.U means we have no say whatsoever as to how many come in to Britain to live and work. At present, they have every legal right to come here. The Popular Alliance says that Britain needs to be able to control the flow. This can only be done if we leave the E.U.

9. Quotas

We hear a lot about services like the Police and the army needing to ‘be representative of the communities they serve’. This is used to introduce quotas whereby priority is given - often illegally as happened recently with Avon and Somerset Police - to those from ethnic minorities over native-born people. One of our founders applied to join the Police. Despite achieving excellent results in his tests, he failed to gain entrance because the police force had been instructed by the Home Office to take more Afro-Caribbean’s and Asians within their new intakes. As a result, ethnic minority candidates who did worse than he did in the tests became Police Officers while he did not. Situations like this can leave a legacy of deep-rooted resentment.

We reject the view that there is ‘institutional racism’ in Britain. Immigrants themselves in opinion polls routinely describe Britain as the most tolerant and welcoming country in the world. That’s a key reason why they come here in such large numbers!

Britain is a society less racially prejudiced than most others. In every case, we need those who appoint staff to look at who is the best person for the job, not the colour of their skin.

As we prepared this report, we read of a leaked report which showed that Asian Police Officers in the Metropolitan Police were up to 10 times more likely to be guilty of misconduct and corruption. We take no pleasure in quoting from this official report, but it illustrates the dangers of selecting staff on racial lines rather than on merit.

10. The integration question

It may be objected that it is unfair to single out any specific group as causing a problem in our society. There are some hard issues to face - both for society as a whole and for the Muslim community. We want to make it very clear that we recognise that the majority of Muslims are good citizens who want to live and work here peaceably alongside others. And we recognise that most Muslims do not support terrorism and indeed would like to see the terrorists and extremists in their own communities dealt with far more severely by the authorities, however it is recognised that there is a problem with integration into mainstream British society by some of the Muslim community.

Our Solutions

On immigration:

We would introduce an annual immigration quota. Our immediate target would be to get immigration into balance with emigration. This would mean immediately reducing the annual numbers of immigrants from 250,000 to 100,000 a year.

A ‘points’ system.  We would devise a ‘points system’ for would-be immigrants. We would give priority to those who have worthwhile skills and/or experience to offer and who clearly showed a desire to want to ‘fit in’ with British culture. We would require documentary evidence of relevant qualifications in their field of work.

Illegal immigrants

a) We would provide sufficient extra staff for the Immigration Service, Customs Officers and the Police to enable them to (a) track down illegal immigrants and (b) prevent any further illegal immigration.

b) All illegal immigrants would be required to register with the Home Office immediately. Those illegal immigrants who could prove that they had truly exceptional grounds to stay - for example those who are working, who support themselves and their families and are contributing positively to community life - would be given leave to remain for a year, renewable annually. We oppose the government’s current proposals for a large-scale amnesty, or ‘regularisation’ as they call it, as this simply rewards illegal conduct and further encourages the crime of people trafficking

c) Those who do not have truly exceptional grounds to remain would be deported.

d) We would increase the penalties on employers who employ those who are not here legally and who pay below the minimum wage.

Citizenship

We support the ‘citizenship ceremonies’ introduced by the government and would make them compulsory, as it is in the United States. The act of becoming a British citizen should be done publicly and with a degree of solemnity and sense of occasion - not just done by signing a short document in a Solicitor’s office.

Without doubt, the ability to speak English is a necessary part of ‘being part of it’ and is needed if we are to maintain a cohesive culture.

In the case of those whose command of English is poor, but who were otherwise eligible, citizenship would be delayed until their English had improved.

The European Union and Immigration

The Popular Alliance believes that the need to control immigration from other E.U. countries is one reason among many why Britain would be better off regaining its independence from the E.U. As we explain in our policy on Europe, we would if elected seek the views of the British people as a whole on our membership of the E.U. in a national referendum. We believe Britain would be far better off outside the E.U.

Severe punishment for people-traffickers

We would give judges the power to jail people-smugglers for life.

On asylum:

Genuine refugees

We would admit and welcome genuine refugees who are fleeing persecution, as Britain has always done. But we would take only our fair share of genuine refugees; other countries must also co-operate fully with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees to solve the problems of the world’s refugees.

If refugees have travelled through another ‘safe’ country to get here, then they must be returned to that country. Under the 1951 Geneva Convention, refugees are required to seek refuge in the first country they get to. Most who seek asylum in Britain have indeed already passed through at least one other country where they could - and should - have claimed sanctuary.

Reception centres for asylum-seekers

We would establish secure reception centres for asylum-seekers who would stay there - that is, in secure residential accommodation - until a decision is made about their application. No genuine refugee minds being accommodated and looked after in a reception centre for a reasonable period until a decision is made. Many other countries have similar reception centres - France, Germany and Denmark for example.

Early decisions on asylum claims

Decisions on asylum claims should be made in a matter of weeks, normally no more than one month. Under the Geneva Convention, the burden of proof is on the asylum-seeker to provide reasonable evidence that s/he is genuinely fleeing persecution. The 10% or so of asylum-seekers who are genuine would be helped to settle in this country and helped to find work, including language courses and education about British history, customs and culture. The remainder would be retuned to their country of origin - or to the country they first passed through before reaching Britain.

Appeals against refusals of refugee status

We would allow one appeal only, to an Immigration Tribunal, against a refusal of refugee status. We will end the farcical system of endless immigration appeals, which cost Britain £2 billion a year - equivalent to a 1p. cut in the standard rate of income tax. We would dismantle the whole expensive asylum operation of immigration appeals, court hearings, immigration lawyers, legal aid etc. - except to cover one fair appeal hearing.

On racism

Reducing racism:

Many communities in Britain fit in well and have settled into the British way of life. The policies we have outlined above will reduce legal and illegal immigration. That in turn will reduce the risks to community stability, which have been caused by recent governments allowing and encouraging mass immigration. Not least, stronger controls over legal and illegal immigration will reassure those sections of the native British community, which in recent years have been tempted to vote for extremist parties because they believe their concerns over immigration are not being addressed by those in power.

Ethnic quotas

We would abolish all ‘ethnic quotas’, including those for the Police forces and the armed forces. We believe that there is only one criterion for filling a vacant post: the best man or woman for the job.

Commission for Racial Equality

We would abolish the expensive and useless CRE, which depends for its existence on maintaining the belief that Britain is an ‘institutionally racist’ society. It is not - as can be proved by the vast numbers who seek to come and live here and the tolerant society they find when they arrive.

Racial discrimination and racially aggravated offences

We would keep the current laws, which we believe are sufficient to discourage racism, racial discrimination, incitement to racial hatred and racially motivated offences.

The integration question

It must be recognised that those who describe themselves as ‘leaders of Britain’s Muslim community’ have no mandate. Many Muslims tell us: “they don’t speak for us”.

a) We would take immediate action to arrest and bring to trial any preachers of hate and violence. A tolerant Britain should not tolerate intolerant preachers of hate and violence.

b) We would prosecute, under existing racial hatred laws, the owners of Islamic bookshops who stock books and pamphlets that promote a violent ‘jihad’ interpretation of The Koran, or incite racial hatred of Jews - and we would prosecute the authors and publishers of those books and pamphlets. We would not duck this issue as previous Labour and Conservative governments have done for years.

c) We would make procuring the forced marriage of any British citizen or any resident a crime, punishable by imprisonment.

d) We would make membership of, or clear association with, extremist organisations that advocate violence illegal.

e) We would prosecute for treason any British citizen, who takes part in fighting against British forces.

f) We would not authorise the immigration of any more imams, mullahs or ayatollahs into Britain.

g) British citizenship, History, and culture would be taught in all schools to help integration and any religious school found to be preaching hate or isolationism would be closed down

h) Any organisation that promotes isolationism and separatism will not receive any public funding.

i) We would ensure there is only one law, under which all British citizens are equal

Popular Alliance - A Fresh Light on Politics