Monday, 5 January 2015

Response to "The Ukip Fallacy" Blog Entry

It seems another "anti-UKIP" blog is running a moderation on their comments, most probably to make sure their is no counter argument to what has been said to the author. So once again I find myself posting a response via my own blog in the hopes I can provide some answers to a pretty dreadful (it has to be said) article/blog entry.

My reply is as follows in the comments section and will be posted here as I suspect it will not be authorized by the moderation on that blog.

Please read this article and then read my response to match up answers:

Firstly the author seems to have missed a few points which are pretty obvious in all fairness. But I shall give it a go.
A) The individual in the video is entitled to her opinion, everyone is entitled to have their own views on immigration. It seems to me that she didn't articulate her reason for this individual to be deported so it's a shame you haven't heard her full opinion
B) It might be her opinion. But it is not UKIP policy.
UKIP policy is regardless of being in the EU or not. Those who were here legally previous to theoretically leaving the EU, would be legally entitled to remain here after.
Nobody would be deported if in the country legally.
C) Those who are here illegally would be reviewed as they would be under the Labour System, Tory system or Lib Dem system.
What you have essentially done is spread a stereotype over a large number of people based on one individuals thoughts.

"It is a common view. It is also utterly misconceived."
No. It is not.
Their are a variety of views through UKIP supporters.
Mine myself is that those here legally should remain. Those here who commit particular crimes (child abuse/rape/assaults/murder) should be returned to their country of birth and never be allowed to return (after any prison sentence for initial crime).
Those here illegally should be properly reviewed. People shouldn't be fearful of announcing their presence in the country (ie: Being here illegally) and people should be properly evaluated depending on what they can offer the country.

This system under the Tories arbiterally selecting people deemed to be here illegally who have spent nigh on all their lives in the country and then just sending them back to their country of birth without their family disgusts me and UKIP and would not be supported by UKIP.

If you have spent your life here with your family you should remain.
But hey don't let that opinion prevent you from smearing a large number of people with a ridiculous stereotype expressed by few.

"A country is its people. There is no vague, mythical construct that “supports people”. People support each other. And in a service economy, numbers matter greatly*.

If only that were true.
The funny thing is people accuse UKIP of wanting to go back to the 1950's. Now whilst their were a great many things wrong with the 1950's (racism/homophobia/sexism), health was much better and inter society cohesion was better. In fact you might say that to a certain degree the above quote could apply more evenly to the 1950's.

"So, if you advocate deporting a couple of million people, it is true enough that you will have fewer people to support."

UKIP don't advocate deporting millions of people and neither do the supporters I have spoken to over the last few years so this matter is null and void.

"The result of such a move boils down to whether the people you wish to deport are overall an asset. Study after study (for instance UCL here, report here, IIEA here, OBR summary here) shows that migrants are net contributors. Not only in the UK, but more generally (OECD here). Migrants cost disproportionately less in terms of health, education or social security."

That would be the report commissioned by the EU, by the same individual who said that net migration to the UK would not be more than 30,000 a year?
Come on. Show me a review done by an Independent unbiased organisation or individual and I might believe it.

Oh right. That's right. There is none.

I have no problem with people with skills coming to the UK, I have no problem with people coming to the UK with potential. I don't care what skin colour they have, what religion they practice, what country they were born in or what sex/sexuality they are. As long as they have something to offer.

There are currently 2 million people unemployed in this country. Many of which are desperate for work. So why should we not allow them an opportunity to find employment instead of inundating the low skilled migrant market with unskilled labour?

"The fatal flaw in the typical Ukip supporter’s logic is in seeing public services as somehow fixed; they are not. They can increase as well as contract and they depend on tax take."

Have you seen the numbers recently. Lets take national debt for instance which is racing rapidly toward £1.4 trillion.
Take the NHS figures for instance, we keep having to pump in more and more money that we inevitably do not have with more and more being put into private hands by Labour, Lib Dems and Tories. It is literally only a matter of time before the NHS crumbles completely.

"The idea that getting rid of contributing migrants will magically free up spaces in schools and beds in hospitals is a nonsense in the medium and long term."

This is the third time the author has made this comment. So I shall ask again. Which written confirmed policy says that UKIP would deport anyone here legally?

Which policy says that UKIP wouldn't allow anyone here who doesn't have a skill to offer.

This entire article is flawed. It is fixated on imaginary policies, assumptions that all UKIP supporters think the same thing and is running under the impression that "if something is said often enough it will make it the absolute truth", when in reality the UKIP policies I have outlined above are neither what this offer have said they are, or would result in any of the things the author has said.

"Moreover, it could precipitate a grudge match in which Brits living elsewhere in the EU are also ‘repatriated’ – the rise of the xenophobic right wing is sadly not limited to England."

Again this argument is flawed so I shall hand over to Steven Woolfe (UKIP immigration spokesperson) who explained why this would not happen. If you want to follow this debate maturely listen to what he says and focus on how it does not line up with the fantasies posted here:

There would be no deportations of those here legally.
There would be no retaliatory deportations of Brits in France, Spain or elsewhere in the EU.

"The view of migrants into the UK as useless ‘scroungers’, but Brits living abroad as valuable ‘expats’ is nothing other than a romantic post-colonial affectation."

Really? Whilst I would not say the majority of migrants to the UK are "useless scroungers", words the author has yet again plucked out of thin air. I would remind you that the majority of those who come to the UK come so with very little money due to coming from very poor countries in Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile the majority of people who travel to Spain, France and Portugal are retirees taking their life savings, property money and pensions with them.
In quite a high number of cases their healthcare is still covered for by the NHS abroad.

So no, sorry, your argument does not tally in reality.

One thing I do find really rather confusing though is how in one breath the age of living has increased in the UK and strain on services have increased, yet the majority of people who move abroad are "elderly and inactive"?

"Now, it could be that the majority of Ukip support would still, out of cultural dysphoria, opt for a party whose policy boiled down to: we want to be more anglosaxon, even if it means being much poorer. Because, make no mistake, that is what is being proposed."

Actually no it isn't. UKIP wants a truly multi-cultural society, not what we have now, which as has been expressed by the majority in a BBC poll has been a failure:

Many areas have become ghettoized and segmented from society and this is not right.
UKIP have never said "be more Anglo-Saxon", again, this is a figment of the author's imagination.

I can remember Farage saying that at it's core, Britain is a Judeo-Christian society which is true for the majority, but he has never said that people who aren't should be ostracized from society.

"The Office for Budget Responsibility is under no illusion when it comes to migration. All things being equal, Cameron achieving his goal to bring migrant numbers down to the tens of thousands is a terrible scenario assumption for the national debt. Bringing the number down to zero is disaster, not utopia. The chart below is fairly self-explanatory."

Again. A figment of the authors imagination.

Cameron said (along with Labour previously) that migration figures should be brought down to the tens of thousands. They have never talked about ending immigration, neither have UKIP.

What UKIP want is global net immigration of around 50,000 a year which is a sensible number similar to pre-Lisbon treaty times.

It is a net increase the country can absorb.
If people apply to come to the UK above that number then as has been said previously they would be evaluated sensibly.

"Zero migration means either unprecedented cuts in public spending or debt at 150% of GDP in fifty years."

No party other than the BNP has proposed their being "zero migration" so this is an utterly pointless point.

"Ukip not only dislike migrants, but they also dislike systems that financially facilitate maternity."

Nonsense. UKIP have foreign-born PPC's, a Polish individual in south London and numerous
Commonwealth candidates in London as well.

They also have a Pakistani born MEP for goodness sakes.

UKIP have no problem with migrants, they are not xenophobic or racist, they just believe in sensible sustainable numbers. As do the majority of society whether they disagree or not.

"With the current absolute reliance on growth and the population bulge of baby-boom pensioners living longer, the UK needs young people desperately to work and contribute."

Well it was recently revealed that 80,000 people who applied to train in the field of medicine and nursing had been turned away due to a lack of spaces. However I see no mention of increasing the number of teaching facilities in your article.

Only the age old pathetic argument of; "people are getting older, we don't have enough trained professionals, quick bring in more migrants that can do the jobs".

Let's start training people to do jobs instead of passing people who cannot find employment off as people who just "can't be bothered".

It's genuinely ironic that this author started off the article by accusing UKIP supporters of calling migrants "scroungers and lazy" when what he/she is effectively doing is doing exactly the same to those who are out of work or desperate to step into the jobs they are trained for in the UK.

"They can either be birthed the old-fashioned way or they can be invited over. Pick one. ‘Neither’ is not an answer. We can’t all be pensioners."

It is a self defeating concept in many ways. The more people you bring into a country the higher the number of people who will need care in the generations to come.

The emphasis needs to be put onto training people we have in the country now. Not increasing the net population to a level that guarantees high unemployment, another factor that the author seems to have completely omitted from the article.

"Economic activity flows from people, not from nostalgia and St George’s flags. There is no land of milk and honey waiting on the other side of xenophobia. There is only a dystopia of suspicion, hate, isolationism and abject poverty."

Again... Nonsense.
Yes economic activity flows from people. We already have people here who can be trained. Instead we absorb other countries talent in the name of "our needs".

Where do you think trained specialists are needed more? Countries where they are needed such as the disease hit countries of Africa, poor and impoverished nations of Eastern Europe or here because we cannot be bothered to train our own citizens and open more affordable educational facilities?

I am not doubting that there are some Xenophobic and racist people out there. But as the author of this article has done, labelling a huge group of people as that, is both cowardly and disgusting.

You can scaremonger all you like with big bold hateful words. But the fact of the matter is a great number of people in this country have genuine concerns that are not bigoted in the slightest.

The authors attitude that all that question immigration numbers are bigoted, made up policies attributed to UKIP and scaremongering nonsense about politicians cutting immigration numbers is a further example that some are prepared to tell great big whopping lies if it suits their agenda.

The reality is the big issues that UKIP have belatedly (admittedly) started raising for example like educating those in the country to do advanced jobs, is something that needs to be talked about.

But the reality is people like the author and establishment political parties are unwilling to talk about it because it treads on the toes of the argument that we rely on immigration to run public services.
In a sensible system where people are training if they have the abilities to do roles, we wouldn't rely on migration to run our National Health Service and other public services.

No comments:

Post a Comment