What the BBC doesn’t tell us is that she is an ardent, if not fanatical, proponent of open borders and the unregulated, totally unrestricted movement of migrants and the destruction of the nation state. She is also pretty much on the far left economically and is immersed in the language of equality and justice so favoured by the Left as a pathway to imposing their other political ideals….such as open borders and mass migration and the end of the nation state…all ideas with much BBC support.
Her thoughts on the nation state and citizenship…
Our interest in maintaining what are essentially inherited privileges – that 50% lifetime birthplace bonus – begins to look pretty selfish. At some point, borders are no longer self-preservation: they’re greed.
Yep…we’re all terrible people, greedy, selfish, protecting our ‘inherited privileges’….how dare we suggest that it might be welcome that we can get our kids into the local school, or that we can access a GP or the NHS without being put into a long queue or that our children can get a home of their own…especially as it is our taxes that have paid for all this largesse and not the migrant who waltzes in and gets the ‘free’ services from day one. Odd how Long doesn’t label the migrants who come here for economic reasons in the same way as greedy and selfish without a thought for the locals.
She of course also works for that bastion of common sense and rational thought, the UN. Which could explain an awful lot.
Her talk asked ‘What does it mean to belong?’, as in how do you define a ‘citizen’? She very carefully avoided giving a clear understanding of her full intentions concerning open borders and the end of the nation state and merely tried to spin an argument that there is no such thing as a ‘citizen’….for such a thing is surely just an accident of birth which you’ve done nothing to deserve….hence why should not someone from anywhere in the world not also be allowed automatically to be a ‘citizen’ of your area of the world? She neglects to mention of course the long history of a nation, the wars, the political and intellectual development, the science and industry, the thought, the inventiveness, the hard work, the character and spirit of a nation that has shaped both that nation and its people. Nations and peoples have character and a long history invested in that country.
She makes a comparison between Russian oligarchs buying citizenship and the penniless immigrant who can’t buy his way into the country. She asks why citizenship is up for sale. But that is a false and blinkered comparison. Oligarchs can buy citizenship but she neglects to mention the millions of ordinary people that have come here, many who have taken up British citizenship, and all without having to shell out the odd million. Their currency is the skills and the desire to work that they bring with them, in return they are offered citizenship. Where is her argument, especially as we took in over 300,000 immigrants last year alone? Were they all Russian oligarchs? She fails to mention the costs of migrants and why they have to make a contribution in some way. The NHS, for example, is free at the point of delivery, but it ain’t free.
The real point about controlling immigration is numbers. If there were 20 million oligarchs wanting to come here they would not get in regardless of money….it’s a numbers game and not ultimately about what they bring here although that is an essential part of the ‘rationing’ process to decide who is going to make a contribution to society and not just take from it.
…by living and working abroad, such people effectively reduce the competition for jobs and other scarce resources in their country oforigin, and thereby contribute to the peacebuilding process. As far as countries of asylum are concerned, the continued presence of refugees…may make a valuable contribution to the growth and productivity of both local and national economies.
So to have a peaceful country it is best not to be overcrowded, best not to be competing for scarce resources (such as schools, the NHS and housing?), and to have as few unemployed people as possible. The migrant countries export their unemployed and excess population and somehow we’re supposed to absorb that ad infinitum?
You have to laugh at this highly simplistic argument for mass immigration that she makes…..
It is relatively easy to make the argument that freedom of movement furthers global justice. The World Bank has estimated that up to 50 per cent of a person’s income is determined by only one variable – their country of citizenship.
So everybody should move to the UK and their income will automatically rise and life will be fantastic? And what of Hong Kong, or Korea, or Taiwan or China, or India or Brazil…..did they all move here to improve their lives or did they build their own economies and create a more equal society, a richer and more prosperous society? Is it not better to improve a nation than to label it a basket case and give up on it and say you know what, let’s bring the population here and, well, we’ll house ’em somewhere, and get ’em some sort of job, and give them vouchers for the food banks. What of Germany and Japan after the war, did they move here or did they get on with it and rebuild their nations into industrial powerhouses, the envy of the world? And that was a Japan with no natural resources apart from the knowledge and skills of its workforce.
Interestingly in the same UN paper Long reveals that many, up to half, of ‘refugees’ admit they are actually migrating for economic reasons whilst officially claiming the reason as seeking asylum.
Yet for champions of global justice, the opposite is true. In 2009, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) determined that migrants who moved from a low-income to a high-income country saw, on average, a 15-fold increase in income, a doubling of education enrollment rates and a 16-fold reduction in child mortality numbers. Framed like this, migration is no longer contributing to the problem of inequality. In fact, on a global scale, it’s the solution.
Immigration, she says, means the immigrant will have a much better life and the country that welcomes him or her will also benefit, as will the country that the migrants leave behind.
She admits that national interests make this argument hard to make…but that is because, she tells us, the people who oppose immigration are wrong, ill-informed, making their judgements based on ‘dubious’ information…
When it comes to politics, global justice arguments can’t simply trump national ones because – at an almost instinctive level – the vast majority of people would claim that nations – communities – are important, and effects of migration at a local level can’t simply be discounted.
It’s therefore important to recognize that the evidence for many claims made about the injurious effects of immigration upon locals is dubious.
Sounds a familiar argument….one that brings us straight to the BBC and indeed the answer as to why the BBC is broadcasting this talk by such an obviously biased, fanatically pro-immigration left wing ‘champion of global justice’ as Long.
The BBC is pro-immigration, it thinks, as Long does, that the British public are prejudiced, racist, and uneducated about the true facts on immigration. They oppose immigration because they don’t understand the enormous benefits it brings them, nor do they have the humane principles and compassion that are the lifeblood of any half decent BBC journalist and which enables him or her to adopt the moral high ground and lecture them rather grandly and piously about the need to open the borders ever wider.
Where are the voices making the opposite arguments on the BBC?
The BBC, still on the immigration campaign trail. News?…what’s that then?