Why Overseas Students Ought to Count as Migrants

2 Dec

Overseas students ought to be included in the immigration figures. There are no clear delineations between an economic migrant and a student visa holder and these students are inextricably linked with the social and public service pressures linked to immigration numbers.

Osborne as argued that overseas students should not be classified as migrants. There are various arguments from him and other supporters of his position.

Duration of Stay

He has said students tend to study and then go home, and that someone should not be counted as migrant if they do not settle.

But it has pointed out that students do not necessarily leave after they study. MigrationWatch has claimed that Home Office research has found that 20% of those who come on a student visa will have legally stayed 5 years and many will stay on permanently because they may get a job or get married. This means that student count towards net migration, and so it would be absurd to not count them as migrants.

But someone who comes in as a migrant will not necessarily study but may work on the black economy instead as bogus students exploit the system. Economic migrants may see the student visa as just a means of getting into the country.

Migrationwatch points to a report by the National Audit Office that found significant abuse of the Points Based System. It estimated that, despite that a student visa has conditions that ban a holder from working, that in the first year of the system about 50,000 were actually after work rather than study. Taking student visa holders as migrants will take a lot of economic migrants out of the immigration figures.

It would also be pointed out that Britain will not know who is leaving because we do not have effective exit controls. It is argued that if it is known that there is a good chance of staying with impunity then it will encourage bogus students.

Migration Target

In order to convince the electorate that they are serious about border controls the Tories made a pledge to reduce net immigration below 100,000 – a pledge that they have spectacularly failed at; net migration has reached 336,000 this year. Migration is currently at record levels.

Students account for the biggest proportion of migration and so, if they were removed from the migration figures, this would make a difference in producing a figure much closer to the 100,00 target. Figures are very headline friendly.

But some people would rightfully brand this figure manipulation (The Telegraph). After all, the figures will come down but the number of actual migrants would not. The figures would not reflect reality but would look more pleasing. Governments are always prepared to insult the intelligence of the electorate.

Surplus Target

It has been suggested by the OBR that Osborne would need to increase migration, or keep it above 180,000, in order to meet his target to achieve a budget surplus by 2020, and the number of student migrants would be a major contribution to this. They expect 1.1 millions migrant between now and then. The Tory government would be prepared to increase migration because business enjoys the cheap labour that it provides and means that it would not have to employ British people. Governments are prepared to lie to people if it benefit themselves and those whom donate to their party.

A former special advisor to Theresa May has said that the government is trying to increase actual immigration in order to increase the workforce and generate more tax receipts. This would reduce the deficit as % of GDP . But the government insists that it wants to reduce immigration because it will increase employment opportunities for British nationals and will increase productivity.

Critics have criticised the OBR for not including the cost of providing for extra migrants through public services – at the same time of making cuts. That if someone is working age that they will therefore work, and if they work, that they will pay net tax. Assumptions that are false. They may not work and they may earn too little to pay tax. Also overseas students from outside the EU won’t be able to work, as condition of the visa.

It is true that there are many students who bring money in to support themselves and then contribute that into the local economy. But students also use public services and contribute substantially to housing demand, particularly the private renting sector. These are demands linked to immigration, impact the local population and so ought to be included in the immigration figures.

Universities

Vice-Chancellors will put pressure on the government to take students off the migration figures. Students, if they are genuine, will pay the full cost of their tuition (if they are non-EU), and so the more non-EU students that go to British universities then the more money that British universities will make. It would be good if universities were well-funded and were world-class but vice-Chancellors are not as interested in the interests of wider society as someone with less professional and sectional interests.

But if students were part of the migrant figures, controlled and only the best and brightest were selected then there would be no reason why universities would harmed. Bogus students do not benefit universities. The government and the universities are terrified that students won’t want to come – but surely along as you offer quality and that is known then there would demand. But if you are too open then the system will be open to abuse.

 

References

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12028078

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/2.17

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/news/

Integration: What Direction?

2 Dec

There is wider argument that indigenous Europeans ought to integrate into Muslim migrant culture rather than the other way round. The latest is that Christmas celebrations ought to become Islam-friendly from a Norwegian Islam expert.

http://www.thelocal.no/20151201/norwegians-urged-to-drop-alcohol-for-foreigners-sake

Lars Gule has suggested that if Norwegians did not drink then Muslim migrants will integrate. He claims that these migrants won’t take part in Norwegian events if drinking is involved. He says that Muslims would go into a bar if it was not for the fact that it served alcohol. So Norwegians should phase out a millennia-old Northern European drinking culture so that Muslims can go into bars and feel integrated? But then maybe Muslims do not want to go into bars or maybe they would order a non-alcoholic drink if they went in.

But then indigenous Europeans should not have to be alienated from our own traditions. Traditions have value for what they are and are not of less worth than Islam even of the followers of that religion may not agree.

But if a Norwegian wants to drink alcohol at a Christmas celebration like their ancestors in their own country then that ought to be a right. You couldn’t imagine Dubai or Saudi Arabia encouraging drinking to make Western expatriates feel at home.

If a migrant does not want to drink then they could just socialise with work colleagues or peers and have a soft drink. No tolerance tends to be demanded from migrants.

An individual Norwegian does not bear responsibility for the fact that someone from 1000s of miles away has decided to come and live in their country and so shouldn’t have to change their observance of traditions.

There is also the fact that the indigenous population would have already done the migrants a favour by admitting them in and letting them work or supporting them on benefits. Changing the national culture would be a further favour without demanding anything in return, and would be completely out of proportion and there is no reason why such as responsibility ought to exist.

Gules claims that drinking is not a norm in the countries that these migrants come from. But how is this relevant? These migrants are no longer in their country and so different norms apply.

But how far would you have to go make them feel at home? Should you encourage Norwegians to pray 5 times a day and attend a mosque? Shall Eid become a national holiday? Islamists around the world will be delighted to see European societies willing to give in and become Islamic. They will see a precedent being set and will push until it falls over completely.

European traditions and national identities have value and ought to be maintained and fought for if necessary.

Will Leaving EU Increase Terrorist Risk?

2 Dec

Being inside the EU won’t guarantee effective co-operation and it is possible for countries outside the EU to co-operate with countries inside the it on intelligence and the fight against terrorism.

Co-operation

Hugh Orde, the former head of the Northern Ireland police, has claimed that if we left the EU we will be isolated and so won’t cooperate with other countries (The Guardian). But then we are not in a union with the US, Canada or Australia but we co-operate with those countries on security. Leaving the EU will not mean that there will not be cooperation with former EU partners. Countries that are in the EU already face the threat of terrorism.

Collective Strength

Alan Johnson has claimed that collective strength will provide more and security and this strength will be provided by the collective that the EU will provide. But the problem is that the EU tends to fall apart in the middle of a crisis. This has been proven by the migrant crisis. EU members differ from each other, and will be affected differently and so solutions will be different, and thus provided the scope for disagreement. But then collective strength will be possible amongst countries not currently in a embryonic super-state.

Richard Tice, a Euro-sceptic businessman, has pointed out that security is provided by the armed forces, NATO and the police and none of this is provided by the EU (The Guardian, 21/11/15).

The EU adopted a Counter-Terrorism Strategy in 2005. This was based on the acknowledgement that open borders will create security issues, and the belief that this will be combated collectively as a cross-border problem (ec.europa.eu). But it is not clear how open borders will make it possible to prevent terrorists and weapons to move about, and this strategy relies on the ability to co-operate in the middle of a crisis. It is not impossible but is far from certain. It is reasonable to argue that cross-border co-operation is necessary due to the nature of the problem but it is not clear why British EU membership would be a necessity.

Borders

Orde has claimed that if we were outside the EU then terrorists would find it easier to move in and out of Britain as co-operation will allow effective border control. But as EU members our borders are porous. The Schengen Zone, something that we are not (officially) a part of, allows terrorists and EU and non-EU migrant to move across the continent freely. The Paris terrorists had managed to move through EU borders towards France and to have weapons smuggled in the from the Balkans. When there is too many people the EU level institutions seem to be unable to co-ordinate security control amongst member states.

Borders across the EU would make it more difficult for mass movements across the continent if they are enforced like what certain countries in Eastern Europe are doing – against the wishes of Brussels and Berlin. If the flow slows down then it will be easier to obstruct those whom pose a threat.

Border sovereignty would be achievable outside the EU and would allow us to control who comes in if the political will exists in Westminster.

References

The Daily Mail, 2/12/15

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/21/

 

George Lawlor and Warwick: How Can the Zealots Justify His Treatment?

25 Nov

George Lawlor is a 2nd year politics and sociology student at Warwick University and he has been the target of vilification by members of the Politically Correct brigade, and other useful idiots, for the ‘crime’ of disagreeing with them.

Feminist activists, with the backing of the National Union of Students, decided that men needed to be taught not to commit rape so they organised classes for this purpose. Oxbridge has now timetabled this class for all undergraduates. Universities are now terrified of their own students. Lawlor was invited. But he did not like the insinuation that he was a potential rapist so he wrote a blog post criticising the logic of running the classes and done a photo with him holding up a sign saying stating ‘This is not what a rapist looks like’. This then led to the shit-storm.

He claims that he faced calls claiming that he was a rapist from other students, both male and female, despite there being nothing to suggest that he had actually done anything other than dissent against an imposed orthodoxy.

His case against the Classes

He reasonably argues that the classes will have only limited effects. If someone is inclined to forego consent then they will probably not attend the classes. If someone attends the classes, that were in theory voluntary, then they would not be inclined to commit rape anyway.

Another argument that could be directed against it is that if someone was inclined to rape and attended the classes then they would be unlikely to change their ways just because a student at the front of a lecture hall is telling them that it is wrong. Of course rape is wrong, but a rapist is unlikely to operate on the assumption that rape is moral and socially approved.

 The Vilification

His treatment has been compared to the pursuit of religious heretics in the 17th century and McCarthyist anti-Communist witch-hunt in the 1950s. Like in these cases, someone who has defied an orthodoxy is pursued as a result.

Freedom of speech is rightfully deployed as an argument against vilifying someone for their opinions. Freedom of speech demands that if someone has an opinion then they ought to be able to express it freely, without being threatened into recanting, unless they explicitly and clearly incite. But in Lawlor’s case this does not apply. He put out a reasonable argument against the point of the classes – and not an argument for rape, as the more fanatical and less informed critics seem to believe.

Freedom of speech is also a means of creating a more informed debate. But the PC brigade do not want to people to be informed for the same reason that the Catholic Church historically kept literacy confined to a few individuals in monasteries. Ignorant people are easier to control. A free discussion will against the interests of the PC brigade so they won’t allow it.

Student newspapers are often organs of PC dogma. According to Lawlor the student paper at Warwick University printed two articles that both criticised him rather than having a balanced set-up with one article critical and one defending his position, or his right not to face the vilification that he has.

The atmosphere it also poisoned when dogmatic bullies make someone’s life a misery for disagreeing with them. Universities ought to be a place where debate happens. One person put forward an argument, and someone will disagree, so they will put an argument against the other one and in favour of an alternative. But what is happening is a small organised group dictates what is right or wrong and everyone else ought to go along with it or else. No debate allowed. If someone disagrees with any Politically Correct doctrine then that person is therefore evil, and not worth debating with. If someone disagrees with them then that person will be bombarded with ‘-isms’ and ‘-phobias’ designed to single that person out as a pariah. This also operates within a wider Politically Correct social framework that increases the scope and effectiveness of Politically Correct vilification on campus.

Nor is it right that someone’s academic future and career prospects can be ruined for disagreeing with PC bullies. He is rightfully worried for his academic future, and that he could get kicked out. Threatening someone’s future in this way also operates as a sanction to keep people in line. Other people will see what is happening to an unfortunate dissenting individual, and will hope to have a good career after finishing their degree and so will hold back from their dissenting opinion and implicitly accept the unearned dominance of the PC orthodoxy. Lawlor has claimed that he knows people who sympathises with him but are too afraid to speak out. This is no doubt true.

Social media can be used as a weapon against dissenters and anybody who is able to speak sense. Lawlor has claimed that abusive people have pursued him on Facebook. As far I tell from what he has said no-one has put forward an articulate rebuttal of his points. That would require too much thinking, and many people get a rush of power from joining a hate mob. Hundreds of years ago these people would be carrying torches and pitchforks and would be pursuing someone who defied some religious tenet.

He says that he has faced physical threats. Someone on a bus apparently was overheard saying that he ‘really wanted to hit that kid’. People obviously fear being physically attacked, and if this is the consequences of speaking off-message, this will act as a disincentive to speaking out. Threatening someone physically is an intellectual failure, and indicates someone who wants to be seen as on the ‘right side’. It is a social signal to say that ‘I am on message’ and the willingness to pursue violence makes that person ‘hard-core’ and increase their standing or so they would believe. Substance of the argument becomes irrelevant.

There are critics of Lawlor that are against violence but attack his position. He is attacked as naïve. In the sense that he did not know what the PC brigade are like and did not expect the reaction he got could he possibly be considered naïve but that is not what the criticism is based on. This criticism is based on the idea that there is not a ‘typical’ rapist. This is a riposte to his sign saying that he does not look like a typical rapist.

Sure rapists can come in all shapes and sizes but so can perpetrators of any crime. But would you get people to go along to classes and state the obvious that people shouldn’t break the law on other crimes? The fact that rapists do not all look the same does not justify making all males suspected rapists. Sure rape is serious and victims suffer for it but innocent men should not have to be treated as suspects and attend meetings to be told the obvious that rape is wrong, just because there are feminists who will only feel safe when they have the male population under their thumb. These ultra-feminists groups often stereotype all men as potential sex offenders and yet men are supposed to accept this characterisation or these feminists will make the fallacious deduction that implicit support for rape is being expressed.

Conclusion

Making a counter point to Politically Correct does not justify the vilification that Lawlor says that he suffered, and those pursuing him are dogmatic zealots who will use threats in order to enforce their world-view onto other people.

References

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3331337/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12011143

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3329659/

 

 

 

Starkey and the Cambridge Video: Censorship

22 Nov

Cambridge University recently done a promotional video featuring prominent alumni, and historian David Starkey was included. But this led to vociferous protests from some academics and students in the latest attempt by the PC fanatics to take control of the institution that they work or study at. Inevitably a capitulation followed when the video featuring Starkey was withdrawn early. However the university unconvincingly claimed that it was not a capitulation leading to it being accused of weakness by other academics and commentators.

Predictably, the reason for this act of unofficial censorship was a list of -isms. These were subjective beliefs that previous statements contravened rules of speech set by those whom believe that their ‘progressive’ feelings gives them authority over the rest of us. They believe that they are eliminating speech that they believe represent an obstacle to some ideal society.

A Starkey Newsnight appearance a few years ago was cited when he made comments in relation to the 2011 London riots that basically said that a lot of white youths, especially from poor areas, were culturally becoming ‘black’ through an adoption of urban black culture such as hip-hop. There is a lot of truth to this and he did not say or imply that black people or their culture were inferior but because he is a ‘privileged’ white man and spoke of a minority culture in an insufficiently venerating manner he therefore committed a PC crime and ought to be ejected from ‘respectable’ society – or so we are told by the unofficial and self-appointed speech police.

But this nonsense is strongly argued against from the perspective of the benefits of free speech. Any reasonably argued opinion benefits any debate. You cannot discard such an argument because the conclusion contravenes what you feel is ‘right’. John Stuart Mill cogently argued that when speech is free valuable arguments are put forward and a step is made to the truth, and false or fallacious arguments are exposed for what they are. Anyway, Starkey was not exactly making a political statement in the video; he was praising his alma mater.

Opponents of free speech argue that too much is dangerous and could be inflammatory. But I have never seen anything Starkey has said that could be considered inflammatory. Certainly not according to any objective measure. Public commentators on television are often bland and just try to avoid saying anything controversial; characters who speak their mind will look controversial by comparison. If this character is left-wing, such as Russell Brand then he or she will be lauded however incoherent or nonsensical they are but if they are ‘right-wing’, such as Starkey or Nigel Farage, they will be dismissed as dangerous. Using the word ‘inflammatory’ is often a means of implying that someone is being shut down in the public interest, and not for purely ideological reasons.

Others argue that if someone is ‘nasty’ then they ought to be shut down because only ‘nice’ people ought to be heard. These are subjective judgements. But the real nastiness is on the side of the PC fanatics because they will threaten someone’s livelihood and safety for purely having a different opinion. It won’t matter how reasonably put that opinion is.

Fear drives these people. Fear that an opinion different from theirs will become the dominant one.

Clearly then David Starkey is just the victim of a self-righteous mob who happen to have academic credentials.

 

Dietary Requirements in French Schools.

9 Sep

A lawmaker call Yves Jego has decided that compulsory vegetarian meals in schools will be a solution to problems created by multiculturalism and mass immigration. He claims that it will simultaneously cater for Muslims, Jews, Catholics and Hindus.

Across Europe native peoples are increasingly compelled to adapt to the ways of incoming populations because these population apparently have an absolute right to live according to ways of the countries that they come from; this alleged right overcomes any rights natives are told that we can have – if any.

France has prided itself on its secularity, especially in public institutions such as schools so you would think that these institutions would be resistant to the imposition, let alone universal imposition, of alien religious requirements. But no. Secularism always have to give way to the demands of multiculturalism. Some consider any religious meals in a public school to go against a secular ethos.

It is claimed that Jewish students in particular are going private in order to eat according to their religion. But it does not follow that vegetarian meals ought to be imposed just to entice a group back into the public sector. Non-religious alternatives can be just brought into state schools.

Some see it as a solution. But to what? No doubt more problems will happen when the patience of native Europeans snaps.

He has demanded that schools within his jurisdiction go vegetarian on the basis that religious people won’t be offended. In other words, it will be guaranteed that Muslims and Jews won’t have to eat pork. But why should native children not be able to eat meat at all, let alone pork, just because of some religion? Surely, these religious children could choose something else or their parents give them an halal or kosher compliant packed lunch?

This reflects a trend that see the wishes of native people being disregarded because the sentiments of foreigners is sacrosanct according to multiculturalism – France does not officially endorse this but enforces it de facto.

Why should parental wishes of these religious minority parents be allowed to dictate what is served to other peoples’ children too? But if a Muslim parent wants their children to live according their religion they could either adapt to the local society or just go an live in a Muslims society in which Islamic law is officially enforced. No, because Islam is apparently the word of god the rest of us ought to therefore adapt. Native Europeans ought to resist the demands to adapt to alien religions and cultures, and defend our traditions.

Some of these schools are in areas where Muslims or other immigrant groups are in the majority – in such areas the requirement is that the majority is catered for. In areas where the natives are in the majority – the minority are catered for. Basically in Europe now anything that benefits minorities and disadvantages the indigenous majority will be seen as ‘progressive’ – a label of left-wing approval.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/603932/

news.yahoo.com/

http://www.thelocal.fr/20150907/

Christian Refugees: Selecting migrants by Religion

8 Sep

Eastern Europe countries have seen multiculturalist developments in Western countries and have decided that they do not want it for their own societies, and so have demanded only Christian ‘refugees’.

Western Europe has experienced a big increase in its Muslim population since World War Two, and generally there has been a failure to integrate as the newcomers impose their cultures and religion onto the host society. This lesson has clearly not been lost on Eastern European countries because Bulgaria , Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Poland have claimed that they will only take in Christian ‘refugees’. Cyprus has expressed a willingness to take only a quota of up to 300 Orthodox Christians, which is the religion of the population in the south of the island.

Those who fail to grasp the big picture has declared this discrimination based on religion and therefore wrong. But this type of discrimination can be benevolent or neutral. It is not as if the Muslim ‘refugees’ are being singled out for harm. Nor does discrimination necessarily outweigh every other consideration – especially the future of European culture and demographics.

Governments of these countries has cited adaptability as a reason for their choice of migrant. It is only logic and common sense to suggest that Christians will adapt to the conditions in a Christian country better than someone of a different religion. Many Muslim communities in the West have set up their own areas of towns and cities rather than integrate with the surrounding society.

Most Muslim countries have not taken in any of the ‘refugees’ despite having the same religion as the majority of them. They would rather see them go to the EU. The Gulf countries, with its wish to see Europe under Islam, wants to encourage movement towards our direction. Refugees would need visas to get into the Gulf countries and are treated as migrant workers.

The Slovakian premier has said that without any mosques in Slovakia Muslims wouldn’t integrate. No doubt if any were admitted then demands would increase for building of mosques anyway. In the West runaway building of them is underway, and they are getting bigger and are increasingly changing the cultural texture of many towns and cities. Slovakia will be in a better position to maintain the cultural landscape that makes the country unique.

Estonia has cited it heritage. It argues that heritage is best maintained by protecting the demographic of that country. Estonia is very homogenous and small, and that homogeneity would be threatened by any mass influx of Muslims. Drastic transformation in a country’s demographics may see the heritage replaced with imported cultural practices. Estonia’s, along with other countries in East and South Europe particularly, fertility rate is low and its population falling. This would exacerbate the effect of an increase in any migrant population. This would, if allowed to happen, bring forward the time when the indigenous population becomes a minority, especially if the new population has a higher fertility rate which it no doubt would.

Poland is worried about jihadists hiding amongst Muslim ‘refugees’. Islamic State has expressed its intention to send fighters to the EU hiding amongst regular ‘refugees’. This would be entirely plausible and so it is reasonable to expect jihadists to be amongst a quota of Muslim ‘refugees’. In West we have also seen problems with 2nd generation Muslims turning against the host society, let alone the first generation. It is argued that a failure to integrate itself can create the fertile conditions for jihadists.

Eastern European countries want to preserve their cultural heritage and national identity. They have a chance not to make the same mistakes as Western countries since the war. They have clearly learnt lessons from observing the unfolding disaster in the West.