Immigrants: The Inconvenient Piece Of Crap 'Documentary'
This evening' Channel 4 'Dispatches' documentary entitled 'Immigrants; The Inconvenient Truth' was very possibly the very worst analysis of the UK's immigration profile that could be possibly be imagined.
It cited Americans as successful immigrants; but failed to say how many Americans resident in the UK might only be working here for short periods - for American institutions.
It cited the role played by immigrants in the hallows of the public services, particularly in the NHFS - yet failed to analyse one of the principal reasons why that is the case; the UK's screwed-up system of nursing training (God, this is just so 2004! pdf))
Inevitably, there was a bluestocking bimbo from the CBI babbling bollocks about how immigration is 'good for business'! Forget business! Since when did 'business' have any role to play in democracy? What 'businesses' have the vote, for goodness' sake? British social policy should most certainly not be dictated by interests perfectly capable of being profitable without mass immigration being able to make a little more with it. No! No! No!
There was talk of how 'unskilled' the British were, when anyone sufficiently sceptical about mass immigration can easily find a ton of data to the effect that all talk of how we will be better off if we increase our skills is nothing but a foul, treacherous, disgusting lie.
Ask the graduate engineers. And blame the politicians for having made such a pig's backside of the education system.
And there was absolutely no mention at all of the most serious immigration based problem the UK faces - that of immigrant-perpetrated crime.
It was dreadful - absolutely dreadful.
| 17 blogger comments
| links to this post
17 Blogger Comments:
I totally agree with your analysis of the programme. Of course, it was only investigating the economic costs and 'benefits' of immigration. The social costs are much higher - the fact that English people will be a minority in London, our capital city, within three years; the fact that freedom of speech is denied to people who are sceptical of the multicultural experiment, the fact that English people are actively discriminated against...etc. etc.
And the medics (4 A-grade A-levels types) on whose training we spend the thick end of a quarter of a million per head only to have them flee in tears to the antipodes for work because NuLab abolished their jobs before they qualified and those who are lucky enough to have any chance of a job here are told to work in a speciality other than their own in a place they don't want to go to. World class planning from a world class gumment.
"An inconvenient truth" should become - if it isn't already - a cover-all term for unprovable left-wing boilerplate, taking real concerns and packaging them with fake statistics as "proof you just don't understand the whole picture, dear, just go away and keep your mouth shut".
Ok I saw it, it was very thin, but it made a stab at a subject most people are too cowed to even talk about because it is a thought crime
Surely as soon as you seen the presenter you knew what it was going to be like?
As Clarkson once remarked, the C4 news is easy, wear a funny tie and read the Guardian.
At least it did break down the race issue.
Indians do better in education and jobs than Pakistanis. Ergo it is highly likely not to be down to racism (racists are unlikely to be able to tell a Hindu from a Muslim, either, so can your Muslim card) but attitude and background.
Ergo we should not import vast numbers of people from backward rural societies, but urban and enlightened.
And yes, crime was totally ignored, as were the Orientals (we cannot call them Asians as that word has now been hijacked!).
They did use a rather extreme case of housing competition - Zimbabwean stroke victim in overcrowded accom vs Indigenous who wanted more space (no points for the latter on the Roger Housing Scale). I supect if the Zimbabwean had not had a stroke but just imported her family, rendering herself voluntarily overcrowded, I wonder how similar the queue jump would be...(my guess very much so)
Info was from the IPPR. Figures.
Sooner or later we'll get to see that claptrap immigration piece on CBC (the Canadian public broadcaster, according to which all Canadians should be replaced by immigrants because that would make things so much better).
Coming from Ch. 4, I am not surprised that the piece wasn't more honest (documentaries about immigration are always produced by leftwing nutters -- so don't ever expect to see or hear the truth).
I really have nothing against immigrants -- and may their dreams of a better life come, but not at the expense of the 'native' population (which is the case in Canada as well as in Britain).
In Canada, we now spend C$18 billion a year (!!!!!!) because only 25% of our current immigrants are net tax contributors; the remaining 75% cost us C$18 billion a year -- and each year we add another 250,000, with some politicians wanting to raise that to 300,000 or even higher.
And then they always sell us the idea of more and more immigration by telling us that we need all those people to fund future pension liabilities and such. Bull! Because at C$18 billion a year, we are only ripping a bigger and bigger hole into our system, instead of providing for the future. Surely, the situation back in Britain today isn't any different.
I heard a radio piece recently when some Euro twat was warbling on about how immigration benefited the country. The next caller was a painter and decorator who was unable to support his wife and child now that people like the Euro Twat could get a Pole to do the work for £30-40 a day. He was having his house repossessed and sincerely asked how uncontrolled immigration benefited him. Needless to say the Euro Twat was speechless.
Incidently, my parents were immigrants to this country after the Partiton of India. They were English speaking, christian and thought that Britain and British culture was unrivalled. They have watched in amazement as millions of uneducated and cultutally hostile people were let into the country seemingly as a short term expedient to drive down the wages of the working class. An immigration policy not dictated by big business is 50 years overdue. I won't hold my breath.
Anon:
Yes, but those were the good old times when immigrants came in search of a better life and were willing to work for it (including learning the language, integration, ...). Today, they show up and wait for welfare money to be thrown at them -- as a result, they don't integrate or learn the language of the land anymore.
I work in civil engineering and to be honest, the poles are a godsend on our sites. It used to be that you could count on only having half a workforce on a monday morning because they've all got 'flu' and half of what does turn up will still be shitfaced from last night's bender. Not any more. We've got a load of poles in and they are fab. They turn up on time and are sober, they don't whinge all day long, they don't spend half the day drinking tea, they don't refuse to come into work if it's overly sunny or wet and they don't glare at you if you ask them to do something. I don't know about other industries but in mine many brits have got away with making a half assed contribution to work for years, it's nice to finally have some people who want to work.
it's nice to finally have some people who want to work.
What do you think they'll be like after one generation?
Recall that exactly the same arguments about willingness were made about earlier waves of immigrants, who today have much higher than average levels of unemployment and suffer the exact "attitude" problem you correctly identify.
Today, they show up and wait for welfare money to be thrown at them -- as a result, they don't integrate or learn the language of the land anymore.
I think you'll find that's not true.
Hardly a very libertarian stance, DK? Free trade in everything except labour then?
Anon,
It was Martin and not myself who wrote this post. Martin is not a fan of unfettered immigration, no.
My tendency is to be not in favour of unfettered immigration at present though, for the same reasons as Hayek, i.e. the Welfare State. Remove that, or make it incredibly basic, and I could be persuaded.
People are not like goods: they affect their environment in very many different ways.
I have discussed my various quandries surrounding immigration before.
DK
I had the same thought as anonymous 09:54 until I realised I was reading a piece by 'Martin' and not you DK.
Is there any chance you could get him to take his reactionary drivel somewhere else in the foreseeable future?
There was talk of how 'unskilled' the British were, when anyone sufficiently sceptical about mass immigration can easily find a ton of data to the effect that all talk of how we will be better off if we increase our skills is nothing but a foul, treacherous, disgusting lie.
Ask the graduate engineers.
And that's not accounting for the 75% of the population that is simply too innately stupid to earn an advanced technical degree.
re your rhetorical question "since when did business have any role to play in democracy is not after the Representatation of the People Act 1948 which abolished the arrangements which had given plural votes to electors in Parliamentary constituencies who met a property qualification because of their business or shop premises. Business votes for local authority elections were scrapped in 1969. The University constituencies and their similar plural voting were also abolished by the same Act. But despite some recent reform, the City of London Corporation elections are still run on an essentially business franchise.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home