Thread: UKIP: UKIP calls for 5-year immigration freeze

Text in full:

The UK Independence Party is calling for a five-year freeze on immigration into Britain and a future policy that would see migrants controlled by a points system similar to that operated by Australia and New Zealand.
In the first of 17 policy papers to be unveiled at the party conference starting in London tomorrow – and to be published over the coming weeks – UKIP proposes:

A five-year moratorium on immigration (except for people with parents or grandparents born in the UK) until proper immigration controls are put in place, and the situation regarding illegal immigrants has been resolved by means of expulsion or the granting of the legal right to stay.
The party says work permits should continue to be issued to companies requiring employees to work in the UK throughout this moratorium period.

After the moratorium, the policy paper says, future immigration would then be on a strictly controlled basis using a points system.

No one should be admitted unless they are fluent in English, have the required educational qualifications, demonstrate loyalty to the UK, its laws and values, and can support themselves financially, with no recourse to public funds – and this to apply equally to their dependents.

"Britain can only control immigration by reclaiming control of her borders," the policy paper states. "This can only be done by leaving the European Union, as the EU now controls asylum seeker policy and requires open borders under its immigration policies."

The party says recent research shows that 80% of people polled agreed to the statement, "We must control immigration even if this means leaving the EU".

In the same poll, conducted by Communicate Research (July 2007), nearly 70% of respondents believed that "our commitment to the EU means we can no longer control immigration".

The policy paper says future UK immigration policy should not discriminate in favour of EU citizens at the expense of Commonwealth citizens. There should be fair and equal treatment for all

It proposes that:

"Citizenship should be granted on a provisional basis for a ten-year probationary period. New citizens should be required to sign a ‘Declaration of Citizenship’. This Declaration would commit them to uphold the Britain’s democratic and tolerant way of life, to uphold the British Constitution, obey the laws, and not propagate extremist political or religious views during their probationary term. If they break the terms of their Declaration, they will be liable to the removal of their provisional citizenship and deportation to their country of origin, along with any dependents, subject to one appeal only."

UKIP's polling reveals that majority of people support UKIP’s principles, that 8% say they are close to voting or likely to vote for UKIP and a further 37% would consider voting UKIP but either don't know enough about the party or have not been offered a candidate.

Other points from UKIP's immigration policy:

• The existing laws regarding the application for political asylum will be enforced. Applications will only be considered at a British port or airport where the applicant has arrived directly from the country from which asylum is sought; or at the British embassy or consulate in that country – anyone who applies for asylum having come through a safe country will be immediately returned to that safe country or returned direct to their country of origin.

• Put in place border controls so that all non-UK nationals who enter the UK can be registered and tracked on their entry and exit from the country. Anyone overstaying their visa will be subject to arrest and removal from the country and will incur a ban on further entry to the UK for a minimum of five years

• Personnel and resources engaged in deporting failed illegal asylum seekers and illegal immigrants will be tripled in size

• Work permits will only be granted to workers who have a job and accommodation waiting for them, and who can financially support themselves or who will be accommodated or financially supported by their employer. This ‘No Home, No Visa’ policy will reduce the pressure on UK housing in short supply, and free up housing waiting lists for British citizens

• The UK will retain an open entry system and warm welcome for tourists from the EU and other countries as existing arrangements, but with proper border and security checks. Reciprocal arrangements for UK citizens visiting EU countries would be negotiated under the UK’s free trade agreement with the EU on regaining independence

• The UK would withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights

• The UK would fully apply the 1951 Convention on Refugees, particularly the clause on refugees having to accept asylum in the first safe country they reach.

So UKIP has abandoned its widely supported zero net immigration in favour of zero immigration.

Goodbye moderate UKIP, hello BNP!

The UK would fully apply the 1951 Convention on Refugees, particularly the clause on refugees having to accept asylum in the first safe country they reach.

This is of course grossly unfair to those countries that border troubled nations. It is about as selfish a policy as it is possible to come up with.

Having read it through a couple more times, there is really very little of the substance that is new to UKIP policy, beyond the headline grabbing 5 year immigration freeze and the unwillingness to cooperate with other countries in sharing responsibility for genuine asylum seekers.

Personnel and resources engaged in deporting failed illegal asylum seekers and illegal immigrants will be tripled in size

No costing has been provided for this, nor any reasoning as to why it has been tripled rather than doubled or quadrupled. Having watched the other conferences, these kinds of detail are far more important these days I think.

I remember very well the number of UKIP activists here who were uncomfortable handing out the zero-net immigration cards during the last general election because they were so easily confused with 'zero immigration'. Well, now that it is official party policy for the entire lifetime of the next Parliament... how do those same activists feel now?

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

So UKIP has abandoned its widely supported zero net immigration in favour of zero immigration.

Goodbye moderate UKIP, hello BNP!

I think the key here is that the line has been hardened by calling for a) a 5 year total ban UNTIL we can get a grip on the situation and re-institute border controls. Then a fair and equal points based system will be introduced to apply to ALL foreigners. i.e. the two planks of the policy are "get a grip" and then "manage effectively".

It is very different from the BNP.

There is of course a political danger with taking a tough line in that it will further fuel the labels UKIP has received and which we have managed to kill of late of extremism. But by taking a tough and principled line on such an important issue could reap dividends.

I think it is important that we release policy in a managed way over a period of time, maximising coverage of our conference. Beginning with such a bold policy on such an important issue on the eve of conference should help boost all coverage of the conference in general. So it would seem a very smart move and more considered than previous announcements.

The key for UKIP is to adopt and understand the solind and principle dreasoning behind policies. Then when we are attacked we can stand sure of our ground and argue our case. If we have ill thought through policies with no principled justification then any attacks will leave us flapping in the wind.

Originally Posted by harryaldridge

It is very different from the BNP.

Sorry, I didn't mean that it was the same as BNP policy, it doesn't even approach their stance of repatriation etc. However, this will be seen as a lurch even further to the right for UKIP, and will pretty much justify all those claims of it being BNP-lite.

Originally Posted by harryaldridge

There is of course a political danger with taking a tough line in that it will further fuel the labels UKIP has received and which we have managed to kill of late of extremism. But by taking a tough and principled line on such an important issue could reap dividends.

Given the lack of any analysis of the impact that this will have on the economy and international relations, I think that remains to be seen.

Although Migration Watch places the overall financial benefit of migrants at pretty much zero, that doesn't mean to say that there wouldn't be huge problems if immigration suddenly ceased. Many businesses are now entirely dependent upon migratory labour.

"Work permits will only be granted to workers who have a job and accommodation waiting for them" - that pretty much rules out most of the Polish and other workers who come over at the moment, although I am sure that some companies would specialise in housing and then just contracting the labour out. How many people would this policy actually stop coming into this country, given that it has such a huge caveat?

The next issue - if immigration is suspended for five years, the population will drop by more than a million people due to the huge number of emigrants each year. Has that impact been factored in? That will mean less taxation, less workers and a significant housing market slump. On the plus side it will mean a higher employment rate, less congestion and cheaper housing.

It is reasonably to say that much of Britain's housing boom has been due to immigration levels outstripping new building work. Remove 200K+ people per year and the housing market will collapse. That's a major factor in the economy.

Has UKIP actually produced a serious analysis of the probable impact of such a policy?

Originally Posted by harryaldridge

I think it is important that we release policy in a managed way over a period of time, maximising coverage of our conference. Beginning with such a bold policy on such an important issue on the eve of conference should help boost all coverage of the conference in general. So it would seem a very smart move and more considered than previous announcements.

Yes, in PR terms, this could certainly attract some attention.

This is a very sensible policy. We are in a crazy situation now, we need to get things sorted before we continue.
Our sensible controlled immigration policies are useless unless we know beforehand exactly who is here, and who is not. This will be a large job, and based on the mention of immigrants either being deported or given citizenship it will likely mean an assesment of each and every illegal citizen we come across. After five years it should be sorted out, and we would have time to put in place proper controls. It seems very sensible to me.

The idea that we should not do what is sensible, and instead choose a compromise between being sensible and being insane, simply in fear of what the papers might say is foolsh.