What, another immigration crackdown, Dave?

There are three fatal defects in Cameron’s latest ‘crackdown’ immigration policy. It is not practical. It is not principled. It is not policy.

 

Nigel Farage in a recent piece in the Daily Telegraph said that Dave’s intention to increase the waiting time before immigrants can claim benefit from three months to six would be illegal under EU law.

 

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

 

The proposal would only be within the law if it was restricted to new arrivals. Immigrants who have worked in the UK must be treated differently because they have ’worker status’ which puts them on a par with native British. The practical effect of this would be very small. Few new arrivals would be affected. Both Cameron and Farage are missing the point, which is that no-one should be able to claim benefit unless they have made a previous economic contribution. Immigrants should not be able to get something for nothing.

 

Farage also says that the real problem about immigrants is that there are just too many.

 

This is an over-simplification. Britain has always needed immigrants. But it also needs the right stuff. This should give politicians a starting point for a real immigration policy that at this time appears to be completely lacking. (Australia has got it just about right. An immigrant must possess needed skills. Stone mason? Welcome, mate! Second hand car salesman? Push off!). Instead we get too many of the wrong stuff

 

Farmers should be given a quota of seasonal work permits since the English are disinclined to get out of bed on a cold winter’s morning to pick sprouts for less money than they get on benefit

 

And politicians must face down cries of ‘racism’ by accepting that what most British probably have in mind in demanding controls is not the industrious Polish plumber, but people who have little in common with us in terms of culture, shared values, language, or religion, who flaunt their ‘difference’ by their dress, who may be a security risk, and who have little intention or ability to assimilate. A skills quota would deal with that problem without introducing a racial element.

 

Asylum seekers will be treated exactly in terms of EU law; they will be immediately returned to the first EU member country through which they entered. That should deal with the threat of Sudanese and Somali refugees currently disturbing the peace in France because they all want to come to Britain

 

Some fairly simple rules could flesh out the policy.

 

Initial entry should be supported by a work-permit, not just an entry visa. A permanent residence permit should be granted only after the applicant has paid tax for five years and on proof of fluency in spoken and written English. There should be no entry for families until a residence permit has been granted, and certainly no payment of benefits to non-resident families.

 

There should be official guidance for new hopefuls. It should tell them that life will be difficult if they don’t have a modicum of written English as henceforth all official documents will be in English only, and if they need an interpreter they will have to pay. If their religion, customs, dress or traditional practices cannot conform to British norms that should be advised to go elsewhere. They must be made to understand that they must assimilate or stay away. And they must understand that discovery of genital mutilation will inevitably result in jail and deportation no matter where inflicted.

 

That should give Cameron a framework for a principled policy, not just a vote-catcher. But at the same time he might shoot the UKIP fox.