Labour's “open door” immigration policy knowingly risked allowing dangerous people to settle in Britain unchecked, according to documents seen by The Sunday Times. The Whitehall correspondence, which was illegally withheld by the Home Office for four years, shows how ministers were told by the country’s most senior immigration official that his staff were to be “encouraged to take risks” when granting visas, work permits and extended residency to hundreds of thousands of new migrants.
The cover-up of this policy of risk-taking was so concerted that Richard Thomas, the then information commissioner, sent a team of investigators into the Home Office to trawl all the relevant papers. Earlier this year he rebuked the department for breaking the law and ordered it to release the material under the freedom of information (FoI) law.
This is scandalous - read the full story here. It adds extra weight to Neather's claim that ministers have been deliberately socially-engineering Britain. Surely it's no coincidence that 'with up to 80% of ethnic minorities voting Labour, it is obvious that the more immigrants who get the right to vote, the greater is Labour’s electoral share.' [....]
Ah, now it becomes clear. Be afraid.
The cover-up of this policy of risk-taking was so concerted that Richard Thomas, the then information commissioner, sent a team of investigators into the Home Office to trawl all the relevant papers. Earlier this year he rebuked the department for breaking the law and ordered it to release the material under the freedom of information (FoI) law.
This is scandalous - read the full story here. It adds extra weight to Neather's claim that ministers have been deliberately socially-engineering Britain. Surely it's no coincidence that 'with up to 80% of ethnic minorities voting Labour, it is obvious that the more immigrants who get the right to vote, the greater is Labour’s electoral share.' [....]
Ah, now it becomes clear. Be afraid.
1 comments:
Dear Sir,
I am from Brazil, I do not master your language, but I understood your point and I take the opportunity to comment on what I see as a worldwide practice of 'engineering', as you put it. The practice that seems to be the master ingredient in the pot of political strategies nowadays. The new President of my country has just been (included) elected, by the way. You call it social-engineering, but I see it as pure and simple manipulation. What is being manipulated may be discussed and thought as one sees fit. In Brazil, maybe it is the poor being manipulated and succumbing to their own dreams about kings and paradise. The danger of using such an ingredient in any manipulation formula, though, is that of a Frankenstein being created and turning against its creator. In Brazil, a coup d'etat intended to keep the interests of all those who were 'forever' excluded from the peaches and cream of the upper classes, may be on its way. So, be afraid. Inclusion must not qualify incompetence. Having said that, what may be thought as being at the bottom of political engineering is the problem of inclusion itself, so fashionable in a world trying to come to terms with its past full of injustice concerning Identity. The Master and the slave. I imagine Pasolini saying something like: "the rubbish ends up in society", then. But the problem to those who care may be not to know what to fear. And as I do not suppose I am entitled to say to anyone what to fear, it remains to be said, in any language: think! Before voting, think. Before thinking, think. And try not to be afraid of anything that may look like personal rubbish for in its most, it is not. It may be only the uncreated in one's conscience, being afraid to create. We are not being 'racial' about it, are we?
cheers and good luck to Britain.
Post a Comment