The governments new[ly reannounced] citizenship tests appear to be expecting immigrants to do more this country than is ever expected of "native" Britons.

So they have to do more than just work and pay taxes - which is itself something that way too many Britons are too lazy to do - but they also have to contribute extra towards public services through an extra levy on their visa, expected to raise a minuscule [in the scheme of public services] £15 million a year. Rather short of the £250 million needed by councils to prevent the need for council tax rises, wouldn't you say?

But not only that, now migrants are to be expected to do charity work and the like in order to show that they are "active" citizens and earn the right to be a subject of the Queen. We don't expect any "native" Britons to do this, so why should an immigrant's citizenship be reliant on doing it?

I don't think that it is all bad though. The idea that citizenship should be have to be earned is a good one, but this is hardly a new revelation. And the same goes for the requirement to speak English. Nothing new, trotted out again by a different Home Secretary and with a few slight differences to go with it.

Basically, this is a gimmick. None of it will cover citizens of other EU countries, and so is basically meaningless in reality.

I'm not exactly thrilled by the Conservatives suggestion of "a limit on the level of immigration" either. Rather, immigration is good for us, and fuelled by economic expansion and the sheer laziness of too many "native" Britons. Benefits: the cause of immigration.

Why are immigrants still flooding into Britain and getting jobs despite rising unemployment amongst unskilled Brits? Because unemployment benefits are too high, and act as a disincentive for actually getting paid work. The report from Migrationwatch shows that:

• A family with two children is just £30 a week better off working on the minimum wage than not working.
• A single person under 25 on the minimum wage of £193 per week is only £10 a day better off than a non-working person.
• A family with two children and one working member receives £79.50 a week of Working Tax Credit. However, after means testing he keeps only £6.77.
• Working families with children and one working member on the minimum wage are slightly worse off than the same family receiving the maximum Incapacity Benefit.
• A single person on the minimum wage would be £3 a week better off than a single person on the highest level of Incapacity Benefit.

No wonder they don't bother to get a job when it makes bugger all difference to their income, but takes a lot of time and effort! That's why they are just lazy - because be hard working isn't worth their while! What kind of society is being fostered by this? A fat, lazy, unproductive one - that's what.

What we need to do to cut immigration and to produce great benefits for Britain - such as huge savings on the social security budget, an increase in GDP per head, less pressure on our infrastructure, less downward pressure on low wages, and a reduction in the non working underclass - is very simple: Cut unemployment benefits. Make it worth their while to get off their arse and get a job, otherwise they just won't bother.

What this Labour government has done over the past decade is foster a society in which living on the dole is both possible and nigh-on acceptable. Unemployment benefit should exist simply to tide them over between jobs, not as a substitute for a job in itself.

I would far rather than working immigrants than lazy-arse Britons in this country.

Yes, he is.

The government has said that it is banning unskilled workers from non-EU countries for the "foreseeable future". This is just pointless and probably illegal under some EU law. It is pointless because there are hundreds of thousands of unskilled migrants in Eastern Europe which are inside the EU who will immigrate, and it is them who are said to be causing the problems.

Frankly, I have no problem with immigrants, wherever they come from, if they come to work and are willing to integrate - my problem is with lazy-arse Britons who don't bother getting a job because they can live off the State. I just can't see how so many just can't get jobs - since they are supposed to be "Job Seekers" - and yet so many unskilled immigrants can.

So long as they come and work and try to integrate, why can anyone object? If we have jobs that need filling, they need filling. if Britons are too lazy/unwilling to the job, then give it to someone who will. And instead anyone talking about how much they are taking out of us in services, talk about how much the Britons who could be doing the job if they could be bothered are taking out - far more, since they are also claiming benefits.

This ban is pointless as it is mostly unskilled migrants from inside the EU who are coming here - and this ban won't stop them. All it is aimed to do is make the government look tough while they are being soft.

Sources: BBC, The Guardian

Not just 5,000, but 10,000 illegal immigrants are employed in the security industry. Double the number suggested before. So the Home Office is twice as abysmal as I thought.

It's just not good enough.

Especially not when they knew about this issue back in July!

The Home Office isn't fit for purpose, and it is seeming increasingly likely that neither is the Home Secretary.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, put spin before the safety of the public. Despite knowing about illegal immigrants being employed by the Home Office - as security staff, of all things - in July she did nothing. Well, nothing to protect us anyway. She was far too busy spinning to save herself. In August, a Home Office memo read:

So she knew, but did nothing about it.

How can they possibly justify knowing about it in July, yet doing nothing about it until November - five months later?

Can the first female Home Secretary survive much longer, or will David Davis claim yet another Home Secretary scalp for his collection?

The BBC reports that:

Let's read that again:
Bloody hell! If the Home Office is so bad at screening it's own security staff as to end up employing people who shouldn't even be in the country, how on earth can we trust them to screen out terrorists and other undesirables?

They don't even know how many immigrants there are in this country, for crying out loud! So what the hell are they for?

The Home Office says that companies are responsible for ensuring that their staff were legal to work. Except, obviously, themselves. If the Home Office of all people can't screen their own personnel, what chance have other companies? Unless, of course, the Home Office is just incompetent, and still absolutely not "fit for purpose".

Source: BBC
Image: Theo Spark

I agree with Simon Heffer:

Far more so than with Daniel Finkelstein:
Whilst what Powell said in his speech was inflammatory, it was not racist. Every single quote that critics drag from his speech - such as "charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies" or "[i]n this country in fifteen or twenty years time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" - were not his own words, but those of the people who spoke to him. Maybe he could or should have made the point that these were, as Danny Finkelstein says "unpleasant or unacceptable", but Powell was the sort of man who would assume that others would understand that point without prompting.

Also, he never actually said "as I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood." But instead he said the phrase in Latin, but wrote it in the transcript, a choice of which he later said:
If he had, it is quite likely that the speech never would have generated such a resonance.

Was Powell racist? No, he wasn't. I wrote my entire undergraduate dissertation on that subject, which you can read here. My conclusion, after a year of study, is this:

The reason that it has been claimed that Enoch Powell was racist is because he spoke on the issues of race and immigration, and was opposed to the continued entry of immigrants into Britain, and the voluntary repatriation of those who failed to integrate into British society. But Powell was not opposed to immigrants because of the colour of their skin, their racial origins, or their nationality. But what he was concerned about – and what motivated his articles and speeches on the issue – was whether or not they were, or could become, a part of the British nation through integration.

More than half of new jobs created in the last decade have gone to immigrants. I have no problem with the immigrants coming in and working. They are coming here and doing the jobs which are available, helping our economy expand.

But I do have a problem with the millions of Britons who just sit on the dole, rather than taking these jobs for themselves. Get off your lazy arses and work! I can't see how it is not possible for any of these people to get any sort of job at all. They may have no skills, but there are always supermarkets or construction sites that need workers! It may not be nice work, but every job has to be done by someone, from cleaning the toilet, to sweeping the road, building houses, all the way up to running the country!

Every job has to be done, and I can't see how low-skilled immigrants can come and get a job so easily and yet so many "indigenous" people are unable to. It doesn't make any sense. Get off your arse and get a job. It may not be a great job or for great pay, but why should us who do work pay for those who literally just can't be bothered?

If you actually have real medical problems, fine. If you are actually unable to get a job - and actually continue to try to get a job - any job - then fine. But you're just lazy, tough. No more dole money for you.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has apologised for misleading the British people:

Truly a shocking thing to hear from a Labour minister. Well, until she undermined it by continuing to speak after the first sentence.

But the most important thing is: did she show off her tits whilst making this faux apology?

Can't speak English, can't come in?

If they can speak the language then they can integrate into society better, yes, but should it be a pre-condition of entry?

It is strange that the condition that they must speak English to enter Britain has applied to highly skilled migrants since last December and is soon to also apply to skilled immigrants - but not to low-skilled workers. Surely that's back to front? Skilled and highly-skilled workers are bound to be far more useful to the economy, and be able to do jobs that low-skilled natives can't. Thus wouldn't it make more sense to have low-skilled workers need to be speak English to enter and work rather than those with useful skills?

A willingness to learn the language and to integrate is going to be more important than knowing the language already. Instead of a pre-condition of speaking English before entering, instead it would be better as a condition to remain in the country. Britain needs migrant labour, and reducing the skilled migrant influx by more than a third wouldn't help.

Instead of a condition before entering, speaking [and learning] English, along with a demonstration of a willingness to integrate, should be required in order to settle in Britain. Brits who go abroad to work don't always [or even usually?] know the language of the country they are moving to, so why should we demand it of those who enter Britain to work?

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph

The amount of money spent on providing documents translated into foreign languages should be cut, says Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary. She said that:

"I think speaking the language is absolutely key... [L]ocal authorities can ask really hard questions about whether or not we are providing a crutch and supporting people in their difference, or whether translation is being used in the appropriate circumstances...
I do think translation has been used too frequently and sometimes without thought to the consequences. So, for example, it’s quite possible for someone to come here from Pakistan or elsewhere in the world and find that materials are routinely translated into their mother tongue, and therefore not have the incentive to learn the language."

It is good that she also points out that in some places such translation is essential - such as in casualty wards - and as such translation levels should not be reduced.

Kelly certainly does have a point. Immigrants should be encouraged to learn English of they come to live in the UK. In fact, it should be pretty much a requirement for permanent residence. Without being able to speak the language of the nation, how can they properly live in society as a whole? Not being able to speak English properly means that that person is massively restricted in social and economic means, and cannot act independently outside of a small certain group - and they cannot ever integrate properly without being able to communicate.

An immigrants who makes a choice to come to Britain makes the choice to come here. They are not made to, although they may be directed by economic imperatives - but it is still a choice. I have no problem with immigration to a certain extent, but those who do choose to come must learn our language, as I would if I chose to emigrate to a non-English speaking country.

I know that I suffer from a certain level of linguistic arrogance, as I can't speak another language and I could never really see the point of learning them at school [about all I can remember of my French is that "piscine" means swimming pool, and of my German GCSE that "fahrt" means journey, "gespeilen" is to verb "to play" and I can count to ten]. However, I don't - and won't - move to other countries and expect them to speak my language. Speaking loudly and slowly doesn't work. Those who move to foreign non-English speaking countries and don't learn the language are at least as bad as those who come to Britain and don't learn English. If anything they are worse, as they expect everyone in their new country to speak English as well!

Money that would otherwise be spent on short-term fixes such as translated documents should instead be spent on providing classes for people to learn English in.That is a long-term solution, and helps everyone - especially the immigrant themselves. Britain is a linguistically homogeneous country - certainly there are no significant linguistic minorities, such as the Spanish speakers in the US - and so English really must be learnt to at least a certain extent by immigrants. Without it, how can they function in general British society?

Source: BBC, The Times

Tul Bahadur Pun, won the Victoria Cross for action in Burma during the Second World War, in which he demonstrated "outstanding courage and superb gallantry in the face of odds which meant almost certain death". The Gazette article on his award can be read here.

He has finally been given the right to live in the UK, after a widespread campaign. Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, said:

"The circumstances surrounding Tul Bahadur Pun's case are clearly exceptional, and in the light of this the Home Secretary, John Reid, and I have reviewed the case and made the decision to grant Mr Pun a settlement visa immediately. This decision was not taken lightly and reflects the extraordinary nature of this case, in particular Mr Pun's heroic record in service of Britain which saw him awarded the Victoria Cross. It is entirely right that this record should not only be recognised but honoured."

It's good that he has been given the right he deserves. And it only happened due to public pressure. We can make a difference.

via Iain Dale and Mr Eugenides

Sources: BBC, Iain Dale's Diary