Bel is thinking

I have been reading the report (pdf) of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, which was published yesterday. Among other things, it considers the effect of immigration on integration and cohesion.

The report is rather good at laying out the perceptions of integration and cohesion from point of view of the different players in this issue; the settled indigene, the immigrant, the voluntary sector and the State. Considering the dramatis personae in this way led me to thinking about what constitutes a just society.

I took this train of thought because I began to wonder, reading through the report, whether it was at all possible to have a society which all the above players would agree to be ‘just’.

Of course, I know that unanimity is not really possible in these things. What I mean is, is there really, as far as immigration and cohesion are concerned, a framework of rules that can be described, objectively, as ‘just’, regardless of the ‘player’ involved. So can we have a society that is ‘just’ in the eyes of the immigrant, the indigenous Briton, and even the voluntary sector? I exclude the State from consideration in this question, simply on the basis that I assume it, for these purposes, to be ‘outside’ society, in such a way as not to be affected by whether or not the society is a just one.

This train of thought led me to Rawls’s door. John Rawls was a political philosopher who did much thinking on the idea of justice. In particular, he thought a lot about what principles of justice should obtain in a society. Rawls wrote that this could be considered under a setting he called ‘the original position’. Basically, the rules of justice were determined by parties behind a ’veil of ignorance’. Put very simply, the question Rawls postulated was this: ‘what sort of society would you regard as a just one, if you did not know what role you had, or what you would be, in that society?’

So for the purposes of this post, let us try this very simple thought experiment: let us imagine the following people sitting blindfold  around a table: an Eastern European immigrant, an  Englishwoman with roots in  this country going back to the 12th century, a pensioner of limited means, a single parent, and a rich man.

None of these people know what their identities in the society would be, because they are behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. So, for example, someone at the table would have no idea whether he would be the immigrant, the rich man, the pensioner, or the single mother. The task then is this: considering that that they do not know which they would be, what laws would they then create to ensure a just society?

If, for example, someone at the table proposed a law whereby all immigrants were given free housing ahead of single parents and pensioners, and that this was to be paid for by very high taxes, it could backfire on him if he ended up being the rich man, the single parent, or the pensioner. He could only benefit from this law if he were the immigrant. However, the fact that he does not know which he would be in the new society, would force him to think carefully before he proposed such a law.

What the exercise seems to suggest is that there is a point in the middle where all the participants can agree; a consensus ad idem. It suggests that there must be a place where they would all agree that the rich man would not be taxed too much; that the pensioner, immigrant and single parent would be treated fairly according to some agreed criteria; and that whatever accommodation is made for them, it would not be such as to anger the Englishwoman whose family have given their all to this country, and who has never asked anything of the State, but the space to enjoy her country as she remembered it as a child.

So will the Commission’s report find that meeting place? I don’t know yet. I don’t even know that such a meeting place exists. I am still reading the report, and will let you know my views later.

The Conservative Party has been thinking about marriages involving non-EU spouses. According to the Telegraph, here are some of their proposals, in respect of entry into the UK:  

• increase in qualifying age of entry from 18 to 21;
• English tests; and
• citizenship tests.

In making these proposals, the Tories are thinking about immigration, sham marriages, and integration, but they need to tread very carefully.

Damien Green, the party’s immigration spokesman, is quoted as saying:

“Too many young women are brought to England to marry when they cannot possibly integrate with our society. They need better protection.”

If so, why increase the age from 18 to 21? Is it not better for the spouses to come in when they are younger, and have more chance of getting an education, perhaps going to a college, joining an apprenticeship, or learning a trade? Many employers looking for trainees will happily take on an 18 year old, perhaps more so than they would a 21 year old; so if it really is integration that the Tories are concerned about, they should not be raising the age of eligibility. The younger one is, the greater the chances of integrating, I would have thought.

I also suspect the Tories are on dodgy human rights grounds with these proposals. So if a bride fails the English test, she is to be sent back whence she came until such time as she can pass? Also consider these two scenarios: an English man who marries a Canadian woman who speaks only French, and an English man (from say, Bradford) who marries a non English-speaking girl from Islamabad? Both are non-EU foreign brides, but somehow I think that only one couple is the target of these proposals. What then happens? Will the immigration officers apply the law literally, and turn away the Canadian, in the name of ‘consistency’? Or will they disingenuously find some narrow grounds for admitting her, while turning away her Pakistani sister?

As for citizenship tests, I have no problem with them. Everybody applying for citizenship should sit a test, regardless of whether or not the applicant is a ‘non-EU spouse’. Perhaps a foreign spouse could be granted indefinite leave to remain, and then upgraded to citizenship on taking, and passing, the test.

These proposals come very close to interfering with the right to marry. Earlier this week, the Court of Appeal ruled that regulations requiring non-European citizens to obtain a certificate of approval before marriage were illegal, and breached the right to marry. Of course, the Tories would argue that they are not restricting the right to marry. Their argument would probably be that one may marry as one wishes, as the restriction is not on marriage per se, but on the right of entry to the United Kingdom. Maybe so, but these proposals, at the very least, interfere with family life.

Take another example: an English man marries an 18 year old girl from Islamabad, who speaks perfect English, and is in every respect ‘fit for UK society’. However, because she is only 18, they are told that she can’t come in until she’s 21. There is nothing he can do to fix that. All he can do is wait three years. Interference with family life? Most certainly, especially given the fact that in the United Kingdom, one may legally marry at 18. At least in the case of a 21 year old, non-English speaking Pakistani bride, a few months in a language school should ensure she passes the English test, and can therefore enter the country. In the case of her 18 year old sister, no such advantage. She stays out of the country until she ‘comes of age’.

My message to the Tories: it is good that you are thinking, although quite why one should credit you for doing that most basic of functions, I don’t know. Still, thinking is good, and there has not been much evidence of that in recent days. However, these ideas are still half-baked, and need a lot more work. Please think about them a bit more before putting them out for consultation.

Human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce on Sky News today. That can only mean one thing, a terror suspect is bringing a law suit for one thing or another.

And sure enough, it was Abu Qatada, appealing unsuccessfully against a deportation order.

Why is it that people like that who hate the western way of life so much will fight tooth and nail to stay here? I would have thought he would be cock-a-hoop at the prospect of being returned to Jordan. But no. He is worried that he faces torture or death if deported. So now he turns for deliverance to the courts system of the country so despised by him and his ilk.

Unfortunately for him, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was not swayed by his protestations, and barring any further legal moves, Abu Qatada should be on a plane home some time soon.

On your way now, Abu Qatada. You will have a good time far away from the contaminating influences of western society. Keep yourself ‘pure’, and if ever you feel tempted to return here, you must do your utmost to resist.

According to Government figures, one immigrant a minute enters the UK.

This relates only to legal immigration in 2005.

One wonders what the figures are for illegal immigration. Because of the nature of illegal immigration, it is impossible to know this figure. One suspects it could well be higher than the figures for legal immigration, especially if one factors in people who overstay.

MigrationWatch does not believe the Government figures for legal immigration. They think they are an underestimate, because, for example, of all the Eastern Europeans who arrived in the UK in 2005, only 65,000 are recorded as immigrants.

Here is a little holiday game to keep you occupied. I’m nice like that.

1) Let us, for the sake of argument, set the proportion of illegal immigration far lower. Rather than one a minute, as in the case of legal immigration (ie almost 1500 a day), let us posit that only 100 illegal immigrants enter the UK every day. (This is a very conservative estimate.)

2) We were told recently that based on the estimated number of illegal immigrants already in the country, it would take 10 years to deport them, assuming a deportation rate of 25,000 a year.

Now here is our game:

• Question 1:
• If 100 illegal immigrants come into the UK every day, and 25,000 are deported every year, how long will it take to deport everybody who shouldn’t be here?

Exactly.

OK, let’s try a simpler question:

• Question 2
• If 100 illegal immigrants come into the UK every day, and 25,000 are deported every year, how many will have been deported in twenty years?

Time for the calculator, methinks.

I don’t know what to make of the news that the Government has refused to estimate the number of migrants who might come from Romania and Bulgaria when those two countries join the European Union on 1 January. So the immigration Minister, Liam Byrne, declared yesterday.

I suppose in one sense, we should be thankful that they are being somewhat honest about the fact that they have no clue. Remember last time? They had confidently predicted that only 13,000 migrants would arrive from the former Soviet countries following the enlargement of the EU on 1 May 2004. Perhaps they were the only people shocked when the total figure exceeded 500,000. I don’t think anyone else was surprised.

So yes, they are being realistic this time, but this still gives cause for worry. For one thing, the fact that no one knows how many people are coming means that no one knows what impact they would have on the public services. True, John Reid has been talking about imposing restrictions on certain types of workers, but these are going to be impossible to enforce, and he knows it.

This is grossly irresponsible, but no longer surprising. This is a Government that has shown itself to have no workable immigration policy. It cannot even keep hold of foreign criminals when they are locked up in its jails. This is also a Government that learns nothing. One would think that they would have come up with a coherent policy to deal with some of the issues that arose after the last EU enlargement. Clearly not. For whatever it’s worth, they no longer seem to be pretending they have the answers.