This is a lie

We learn from the BBC that David Cameron is a filthy liar.

David Cameron has said migration can be managed if the UK remains inside the EU...

No, it can't.

A fundamental part of the Single Market is the free movement of people. You do understand what "free movement" means, you dish-faced bastard?

What it means is that any citizen of the EU can settle in any other country within the EU. One can argue the rights or wrongs of this policy, but it is a central tenet of the EU Single Market.

Equally, it means that you cannot control the influx of people into this country. Therefore, the statement above is a lie.

You fucking lying bastard.

Mission creep

In a rather long post about how governments in general—and the EU in particular—usurp our freedoms, I wrote the following paragraph.

It is a simple fact that the range of EU competencies is astonishingly wide, and are prone to mission creep: an EU competency in "green" issues, for instance, becomes a plausible excuse for EU meddling in energy generation policy.

Today, we come across another example of this mission creep...

As we all know, the Coalition are cracking down on non-EU immigrants: in fact, they have placed a cap on such immigration*. The reason that they have not placed a cap on EU immigration is because, quite simply, they cannot—EU law has primacy over British law ad EU immigration is an EU competence.

But we do have control over non-EU immigration. Or, as England Expects highlights, maybe not: you see, the EU is about to complete a trade deal with India—and trade is solely an EU competence.

"So what?" I hear you cry. "What the hell has that got to do with immigration?"

Well, as Bruno Waterfield points out, quite a lot, as it happens...

A planned "free trade agreement" with India, to be signed this December, will give skilled Indian IT workers, engineers and managers easy passage into Europe in return for European companies gaining access to India's huge domestic market.

Put simply, in return for access to India's domestic markets, the EU will allow thousands of Indians into EU countries. Now, personally, I am all for free trade—in people as well as goods and capital.

But that, of course, is not the point.

The point is that the EU's total control over trade has allowed that organisation to extent its competence into an area over which it is not supposed to have any jurisdiction, i.e. non-EU immigration policy.

Mission creep—do you see? And not a power-ceding treaty in sight...

P.S. Lest someone pop up and accuse me of swallowing the anti-EU Telegraph's evil propaganda, I will let England Expects point you to the following headlines in the Indian newspapers...

Here is The Hindu:

India-EU trade deal may help bypass UK migration cap

Here is The New Kerala:

EU-India 'free trade agreement' will allow flood of Indian skilled workers into Britain

The Times of India Business:

India-EU trade deal may nullify UK migration cap

You get the point.

Indeed we do.

As I say, the point here is not about whether immigration is a good or a bad thing: this is simply an illustration of the way in which the EU co-opts new powers for itself through sleight of hand—and to show how utterly fucking pointless the Tories' "referendum lock" actually is.

The final point to note is that our government is not in control—or, at least, the one in Westminster is not. The only powers that the British government has are those that the EU has not yet taken control of.

UPDATE: EuroGoblin is calling bullshit on this story...

Despite hunting, I can’t actually find a copy of the FTA text anywhere online – so I assume most people are commenting on it without having read the clause in question. However, I really don’t need to read the clause to know this particular story is bullshit. Free Trade Agreements require unanimity in the Council before they can be adopted by the EU, and this will also be the case with the Indian deal. A similar deal was recently passed between the EU and South Korea, and Italy threatened to veto unless the implementation was delayed by six months. Guess what? Italy was given the six month delay and then dropped its veto.

Thus, is it the case – as the Devil argues – that “our government is not in control”? No, that’s obviously rubbish. If the UK government wants to (and it almost certainly does), it will veto the agreement unless an opt-out is secured. It has, after all, secured numerous opt-outs in the past on immigration and trade policy – in fact, the UK has a complete opt-out from the common EU immigration policy and instead “opts-in” to what it wants.

Which is all quite probably true: I guess we'll just have to see how this pans out. If EuroGoblin is correct—and I've no reason to think he's not—and The Coalition does not object, then we'll know that their anti-immigration rhetoric is meaningless (thankfully).

* Anyone know if that applies to people already here, by the way...?

More bollocks on immigration

Generally speaking, I find Burning Our Money an informative—and often alarming—read. But Wat Tyler's current focus on immigration is starting to annoy me, just a wee bit. It isn't that his figures are wrong—they rarely are—but that his solutions seem to show a burning ignorance of just what is involved.

Let's take this comment, for instance.

Yes, of course we would want to make exceptions for genuine asylum seekers.

Really? Why? I seriously doubt that this is the first safe country that they have reached, so why should we make an exception? Especially when they are not allowed to contribute to the economy for three years.

Of course, it might be a good idea to remove the ridiculous ban on asylum seekers working—a ban that forces them to live on benefits but guarantees that various idiots and bigots can moan about them being lazy, waxing fat off the fruits of other people's work—but then the indigenous population would bollocks on about how all these filthy asylum seekers were coming over here and pinching jobs from hard-working Brits, eh?

Right now, asylum seekers can't win. So, either we stop being so bloody unpleasant to them or we should politely turn them away: either course would be more humane than the disgusting way that we currently treat them.

And we might want also to make exceptions for some high skill workers (although we could just give them fixed-term work permits).

For fuck's sake! We do give immigrants fixed-term work permits.

The major permits are the Tier 1 and the Tier 2, both of which must be renewed after three years. If you no longer qualify under those permits, you are deported.

• To get the Tier 1 visa, you must have sufficient points. Getting a Tier 1 will usually involve you having at least two degrees, a certain amount of previous earnings, an ability to speak English, and £800 "maintenance" in your bank account for the three months previous to applying—not including the £820 that the application will cost (money that the UKBA keep, even if the visa is refused).
  
  Although the Tier 1 is not tied to a job, upon renewal you will have to prove that you were earning a minimum of £25,000 per annum for at least the entire previous year, you will have to fork out at least another £820 (and maintain the £800 "maintenance") and prove, once again, that you have sufficient points.
  
  Of course, you won't know that you have sufficient points until you actually have to apply because the government keeps changing the damn system.
  
  Plus, of course, you are not allowed to claim any benefits. Oh, and if you marry a native, they are no longer allowed to claim any benefits either. Of course, if you are claiming benefits, then you obviously cannot support yourself, so deportation will shortly follow (whether you are married to a native or not).


• The Tier 2 visa is tied to your job, so you must be able to prove that you have a sponsoring company. This company will have to pay £800 to be a sponsor, plus you will have to pay another £800 to apply for the Tier 2 visa.
  
  There are numerous regulations about the viability of the company too—it must have been in existence for at least two years before your arrival, seen investment of at least £750,000 and have created two other full-time jobs. And the company must be able to prove, by the way, that there is no EU or British citizen who could do the job instead.
  
  Oh, and you are subject to the points system, as for the Tier 1 visa.
  
  Since the visa is tied to your job, if you are sacked or made redundant or the company goes bust, then you are immediately deported. In any case, the visa is only valid for three years, after which you must reapply.
  
  By which time, of course, the government will almost certainly have changed the rules again.

Of course, there are various rules about dependents, etc. and they are all tied to your visa. So, if you go, they have to go.

So, Wat, we already have time-limited work permits. Unless, of course, you were proposing that these permits be totally time-limited, i.e. that you cannot ever apply again? I bet you were, weren't you?

In which case, you are simply trying to ensure that no one ever hires a migrant for anything other than grunt work. But—wait! You said...

And we might want also to make exceptions for some high skill workers (although we could just give them fixed-term work permits).

So, you want to take in highly skilled workers, and ensure that they can never get highly-skilled work? Are you a total idiot?

Of course, it's entirely possible that Wat did not mean that, in which case he's just an ill-informed idiot.

Of course, after you have been in the country continuously for five years, you can apply for Tier 1 settlement or Tier 2 settlement. This will involve yet more large sums of cash being sent to the UK Border Agency, plus qualifying at the time that you apply (yes, the government will have changed the rules), plus taking the ridiculous Citizenship Test (most of which I don't know the answers to), and various other hoops and hurdles.

Staying in this country is not easy (unless, of course, you are an EU citizen).

You are not allowed to claim benefits, so you have to be contributing to the system—not taking out of it.

The only immigrants who can take out of the system are EU migrants and asylum seekers. So, whilst Wat Tyler might be correct when he asserts that the majority of immigrants are from outside of the EU, they are the productive ones—the ones that we want to keep.

If these immigrants are, indeed, putting a strain on our public services, it is only because the state is wasting their tax money on bloody duckhouses and lesbian outreach workers, and not investing it in the core public services.

Wat Tyler also asserts that many of these migrants don't declare that they are here to work when they enter the country.

The truth is that by far the biggest inward migration flow from outside the EU comes from people who say they are coming here to study.

If we look at the same Survey, we find that just in the last 5 years, over 0.5m people net came here from outside the EU saying they were going to study. Which is 60% of all net inward migration over the period.

And in principle, we should be delighted that people want to study here. Not only does it earn us money, but it also gives us valuable worldwide connections for the future.

The problem comes when these students don't actually leave again afterwards.

When your study visa runs out—as it does when your course finishes—you have to move onto a Tier 1 or Tier 2 visa. And your study period does not count towards the five years needed to qualify for settlement.

Most student visas are for four years, but you are not allowed to work more than a few hours under a student visa (so you had better have a lot of savings or a massive loan).

So, after your course, you will need to qualify (and somehow pay) for a work permit—see Tier 1 and Tier 2 above. And if you want to qualify for settlement, then you could have been in this country continuously for nine years.

More than enough time to build a life; but a life that you can never fully commit to because you could effectively be deported at almost any time (especially as the government keeps changing the rules—sometimes retrospectively—in order to pander to the depressingly large number of hysterical, ignorant bigots who reside in this piece-of-shit country).

It should go without saying that I regard all of this to be utterly inhumane—and those who continue to agitate for yet more unpleasantness to be visited upon those who simply want to work to be pathetic and disgusting and, yes, almost sub-human.

As I have said before, watching the Big Three competing to see who can be the nastiest to these people—watching them attempting to maintain that their xenophobia and unpleasantness is, in some way, different to that of the BNP's—is a deeply unedifying sight (although not without it's own bitter amusement value).

And it is xenophobia and bigotry, as my wife and Andrew Hickey (who has been in a similar situation to myself) have previously opined.

Because there is most certainly no economic argument for this stupidity. No, really.*

These kinds of immigrants do not undercut the wages of the local population: the hoops that they—and, in many cases, the sponsoring company—are required to jump through ensure that these people are doing highly-skilled, highly paid jobs. In the case of the Tier 2, companies must prove that no EU or British citizen could do the job instead; they must also prove that the job requires a certain level of skill. And, of course, leaving aside the pretty huge sums of money that are required as "maintenance" and fees, re-application requires that they prove that they have been earning above a certain wage anyway.

Because of this, in practice the only immigrants that undercut the local labour prices are those from the EU. And they can only do so down to the National Minimum Wage anyway.

Since immigrants cannot claim benefits—whilst paying full taxes on what are, necessarily, relatively high wages—they are no drain to the economy on that score. And yes, they may use certain services (such as the NHS) but, like the rest of us, they pay for that with their National Insurance Contributions.

EU immigrants, of course, can claim benefits. And they do not have to work in order to stay in the country.

This is why, if you worry about such things, it is immigration from the EU that is the issue—not because they are more numerous than those from outside, but because it is they who can be a drain on our economy and public services.

But, of course, not one of the Big Three is promising to do anything about that—because they can't whilst Britain remains within the EU. And all Three want Britain to remain in the EU.

Seriously, I am sick and fed up of people whining about immigrants "coming over here, stealing our jobs/taking our benefits/destroying our public services [delete as appropriate]." (And yes, Sunny, I may have changed my mind (slightly. A subject for another post, that)—but that is what a wise man does when faced with new facts.)

And that is one of the reasons why I write a blog: so that I can disseminate the facts, and let people cogitate new ideas and new information and maybe—just maybe—change their minds.

P.S. A quick word on marriage (or "spousal") visas, since I am sure that someone will bring them up. You have to have explicit permission from the Home Office to marry, and this takes three months. You then have to get married (not a light or inexpensive undertaking) and apply for a marriage visa—the application will cost you about £500. In the course of doing so, you need to give all sorts of explicit information to the Home Office, and they may decide to ask for more proof that you are, in fact, both married and in a genuine relationship.

They don't quite ask for the bloodied wedding night sheets, but it's often not far off.

The marriage visa only entitles the applicant to live in Britain for two years. After which you must go through the whole sordid, invasive and expensive process again.

P.P.S. If you want some advice on the long, tedious and humiliating process of applying for a fiancé visa, Shane Greer has some advice from his own experience.

P.P.P.S. Do remember that, assuming your fiancé visa is granted and the state lets you actually marry, you will then have to apply for a spousal visa [see above].

* There is an integrationist argument, of course, but no "mainstream" politician will talk about that for fear of revealing that their motivations are precisely the same as the BNP's. And, really, when it comes to the Anglosphere, there is no integrationist argument to be made.

What everyone is terrified of spelling out is that, when they talk about cultural dilution, what they actually mean is that they don't like all these bloody Muslims—coming over here, bombing our decent, British Christians.

But, once again, everyone is too scared to spell it out, because they'll look like the bigots of the BNP (and, I'm sad to say, UKIP).

In any case, punishing the innocent (Muslim or otherwise) for the sins of the guilty is a disgusting thing to do, and anyone who advocates it is a scumbag of the very first water.

Immigrants and the "social contract"

Having railed against the repulsive attitude that this country has to immigrants, it is time to propose a solution—and it is a solution that could solve other problems too.

NuLabour has cracked down hard on non-EU immigrants because this is the only way of responding to the perceived problem of immigration. The main problem with immigration—provided you are not simply a BNP moron who hates the sight of "darkies"—is that they take up resources, such as benefits.

The trouble is that non-EU immigrants cannot claim benefits and so they tend to be the ones that work. Many EU citizens work too, but they are allowed to bring in families that are eligible for benefits and do not work at all.

Our benefits bill is reaching ever closer to the £200 billion mark—it is becoming utterly unsustainable.

So, here is my proposed solution, and it is a solution designed to be implemented tomorrow—that is, it assumes that we are still in the EU, etc. So, here it is: no immigrant may claim benefits until they have been working—and contributing tax (i.e. cash in hand work will not count)—for four years.

But wait! The EU will not let us treat EU citizens any differently to British citizens. Great! The same thing applies across the board, for British citizens too.

When National Insurance was first implemented, you had to have been paying in for a certain amount of time—and earned your "stamps"—before you could start getting payouts. To an extent, this is still the case, but other benefits are not, theoretically, part of the National Insurance system, so they are paid out without any requirement to have paid in.

This should stop, right now.

So, everyone—regardless of where they are from originally—gets treated in exactly the same way: no one shall receive any benefits until they have paid tax into the system for four years (an arbitrary number—we could make it higher, if you like, or lower—four years seems a reasonable time to me).

In this way:

• we can stop paying for people's lifestyle choices (including encouraging the feckless to have children)


• we can diffuse the resentment based on the "bloody immigrants, coming here and stealing our benefits" argument


• we give people an incentive to pay tax rather than do cash-in-hand work; we stop people coming here with massive families in order to soak our ridiculously generous benefits system (and thus reduce immigration)


• we can remove these spiteful bars to non-EU immigrants working (and thus allow private companies to hire who the fuck they want)


• it will provide us with an incentive to ensure that our schooling is up to scratch (since natives will be competing with immigrants on an equal footing)


• it allows us to open our borders to those who want to come and work here (and neutralises Hayek's problems with doing so whilst a Welfare State exists); and, of course, we will substantially reduce our social security bill.

A lot of people on the Left tend to witter on about the "social contract". Now, your humble Devil cannot remember voluntarily signing such a thing—however, if one is being generous, one could assume that paying tax is when you start contributing your part to the "social contract".

If you don't pay in, then you shouldn't get the benefits. It's that simple.

This is a easy-to-understand, reasonable and rational response to a good number of the problems that we have in this country.

Any questions?

UPDATE: as regards slinging those who have worked to the current benefits system into the street, I suggest that the new regime would be widely publicised—and brought in eight and a half months after its announcement. W ecould make it nine months, but that might well result in a rash of people quickly conceiving and, as such, a massive glut of largely unwanted children to support.

The Leaders' Debate

Oh wow! It's only taken about ten minutes for the three Big Party leaders to attempt to outdo themselves in how unpleasant and draconian they are going to be to immigrants.

Any minute now, the camera will pan up and we'll see Nick Griffin holding the strings on three puppets. That must be the case.

Because surely Brown, Cameron and Clegg cannot possibly be this authoritarian and unpleasant, can they?

UPDATE 08.51pm: ah, yes, we haven't addressed the problems of crime committed by drug addicts. We aren't tackling the underlying problems, says Cameron. No, Dave, you haven't—legalise drugs.

So you'd like to emigrate to America?

British libertarians must be wary of advocating any action which presents itself as an escape clause to the present body-political cancer currently infecting in the U.K.

Emigration to an apparently slightly more free polity is one such escape clause. Some Britons go to France, some to Australia, some to New Zealand. Fine; chacun a son gout.

But many British libertarians look to the United States as a low-tax, smaller-government paradise, at least when compared to the United Kingdom. Do not succumb to this error, for erroneous it is.

British people, as anyone who's anyone knows, are far better educated about the US than Americans are about Britain. But do not be fooled by this into thinking that Americans are poorly educated. No, we can't locate Montenegro on a map, but that's because few Americans will ever even contemplate going there. Most Americans never leave the US, and content themselves with domestic holidays that provide by far more geological and cultural diversity than domestic holidays in Britain. From Florida to Oregon is a greater distance than Britain to Montenegro.

And one thing Americans understand as if born with the knowledge is the federalist nature of their home country. They know that there is greater political variation from state to state than there is between Wales and Scotland, for example; and they comprehend that not only is that variation acceptable, it's practically mandatory.

When Britons think of the United States as a kind of Mecca for the free and the brave, they are rarely taking into account that this view depends entirely on the specific destination envisioned. Consider, as an example, Delaware and Maryland. Two small states (at least by comparison with other American states) that share a border and a coastline. Delaware levies no state income tax or state corporation tax; as a result, a tremendously large number of American businesses have their headquarters incorporated there, and the average Delawarean taxpayer has to file (almost uniquely within the union) only one tax return every April. Delaware, by virtue of levying little tax, has a small state bureaucracy, which can be observed in the simplicity of procedures such as getting a driver's licence or purchasing a house.

Maryland, by comparison, is heavily bureaucratised. It levies taxes and fees for everything; it regulates practically all aspects of commercial and social interaction, at high cost to its residents in both personal income tax, simony, and corporation tax. (Not many businesses are incorporated in Maryland, though this is unsurprising, considering that 90% of Maryland acts as a residential suburb for federal government employees.) Maryland residents, to give one example, are required to bear number plates on both the front and rear bumpers of their automobiles. Car insurance companies will not insure a Maryland driver unless this condition is met; a car will not pass the Maryland equivalent of the MOT unless this condition is met; failure to meet these conditions will also result in heavy fines from the traffic police.

Therefore whether or not America is a paradise of freedom and prosperity depends entirely upon where you live within it.

Fortunately, if you have the clout, wherewithal, and minority status to get into the US (which is harder to enter than a Vestal virgin, unless you come via Mexico, in which case America is a bigger slut than your first high-school girlfriend), moving from place to place is easy. So is trade: the much-praised US constitution does not permit of interstate protectionism. You might fetch up in Maryland, but to move to Delaware would be easier than moving between England and Scotland.

There are currently-newsworthy exceptions to this rule, however. The most significant is health insurance. One of the things the Great Healthcare Bill does nothing about is the fact that health insurance consumers may only purchase health insurance within state lines; and health insurance companies, as a corollary to this unconstitutional privilege, are also granted exemption from anti-trust legislation specifically set up to prohibit the kind of monopoly the federal government permits in this one area of domestic commerce. As with all industries given state protection from competition, health insurance has soared in cost since the New Deal. The Obama administration's solution to same is to prevent such companies from not selling policies to sick people but without, naturally, controlling the cost of such policies, the Great Healthcare Bill promising to pick up the tab for those who can't afford to purchase policies on their own. And so the insurance companies cry like Brer Rabbit in the briar patch, 'Please, please don't give us more customers!'

It is a cry that goes unanswered; the federal government will give the health insurance companies more customers, goddammit, whether they like it or not.

British libertarians, do not deceive yourselves: the United States is the largest and best-run fascist nation the world has ever seen. It is not as overt about it as Mussolini, perhaps, but it makes him look like a rank amateur. Do you think that the health-insurance lobby would for one second permit their pocket Congressmen to pass the Great Healthcare Bill if it were truly detrimental to their interests? Of course not. The Great Healthcare Bill does nothing to help the consumer of healthcare. If it did, it would revoke the monopoly exemptions of health insurance companies and encourage a great flourishing of insurance competition, which as we all know would serve to decrease the price of same. It would allow consumers to purchase plans covering only healthcare they expected to need, rather than mandating that every plan include e.g. gender reassignment surgery, chemical birth control, and cognitive behavioural therapy. Instead, what it actually does is *gasp* force health insurance companies by law to take on new customers. Way to stick it to big business, there, Obama.

The fact of the matter is that all politicians, British or American, are subject to the same pressures from corporate interests. The corporate interests might differ—witness the cash-recirculation scheme operated between the Labour party and the unions—but the pressures never change. Large businesses, be they unions or health insurance companies, have money and influence individual voters can only dream of. As the left wing are so fond of emphasising, collective action is powerful. Whether the collective in question is businesses seeking legislative protection from competition or unions seeking public funding for their oh-so-necessary efforts not to be sacked makes no difference. The individual voter serves one real purpose, and that is to provide democratic legitimacy for whatever the legislature does to service its well-organised and well-funded corporate paymasters.

If this is true in Britain, it is doubly true in the United States, which has bigger corporations and more money. There is no better proof of this than the Great Healthcare Bill, which will enrich the monopolistic insurance companies at the expense of both the individual consumer and the taxpayer. Perhaps, being a non-federalist Briton, you think this bill will help the poor who cannot afford insurance. If so, I urge you to rethink your view.

One of the most prevalent criticisms of American health insurance is that insurance companies are reluctant to take on customers with the much-publicised 'pre-existing conditions' and to pay out for procedures not even tangentially related to same. What do you think will happen to insurance premiums when insurance companies are no longer permitted to refuse customers who will cost the company more than they will pay in? What do you think will happen to the Medicaid budget when it is forced to purchase the healthcare of those who can no longer afford private insurance premiums? If you think the answer is anything other than 'There will be a gigantic increase,' you are living in cloud-cuckoo land.

An interesting unintended consequence of the Great Healthcare Bill has been the resolution passed by various Southern and Mid-western states to ignore federal action they deem to be outwith the 10th Amendment of the US constitution. We will not implement these programs, they say, or penalise federal offices that do not implement these programs. And in fairness to them, nothing in the constitution makes provision for vast incursions by the federal government into the American economy, regardless of the perceived importance of a particular commercial sector. By and large the states that have passed this resolution are ethnically homogeneous and economically self-sufficient, with a few notable (and notably contrarian) exceptions such as Alabama and South Carolina.

Such resolutions are in one sense laughable; state legislatures have absolutely no power to impede federal directives, or to impede the activities of the multiplicity of federal offices that abound within every American state. They might as well try to dam a river with a pebble. On the other hand, these resolutions are a powerful signal. American states, after all, have a history of secession, a will to the kind of self-government the United States supports everywhere else in the world. It requires virtually no stretch of imagination to view these 10th-Amendment resolutions as a waving flag to the other states of the union declaiming, 'We are ready to secede, if the rest of you are.' Eleven states have done this; they represent much greater than 20% of American land area, though not 20% of the American population. Alaska is one such; known for its bloody-mindedness and eccentric independence, it would not find it at all difficult to secede. Not only are there few people in Alaska, they are badass too. Even federal employees are more Alaskan than they are federal. Five minutes after secession would see drills all over the ANWR reserve and the start of a pipeline to Russia (who still unfashionably persist in this oil-drilling business). Dead caribou would represent what is commonly known as a bumper harvest. Mind you, the Alaskans wouldn't allow them to become extinct; they would farm them for their succulent meat and durable furs.

Ask yourself, after all: how many of our current domesticated mammal species would have been extinct hundreds of years ago if we didn't husband them for other purposes? Do you think the average sheep would have survived in wolf-filled Europe if we hadn't killed all the wolves in the name of protecting the wool-bearing, tasty-lamb-producing sheep?

Louisiana and Alabama are more puzzling in these terms; both those states are the recipients of considerable federal largesse as well as having an uncomfortable history of fighting for the continued enslavement of the black man. On the other hand, they possess access to Gulf oil. The Mid-western states produce a giant proportion of the world's grain. At the moment, they are subsidised by the federal government which places restrictions on where and how they can trade. Imagine how prosperous they might be if they could junk the restrictions and sell vast loads of wheat at rock-bottom prices to places like India, China, and Japan!

So there are some places in the United States that reject, if only implicitly, the fascist union of the federal government to federal business. But their resistance will be a long time in coming, if ever; do not count on emigrating to Wyoming to provide you with the libertarian paradise about which you have always fantasised. Better to go to Montana, where state troopers can scarcely enforce speed limits. You'll be branded as a Militiaman, of course (something which the New Hampshire Free Staters have not yet experienced, if only because New Hampshire is a miniscule state filled with agricultural white smallholders—or perhaps in spite of this, now that I consider it), but Montana is filled with vast open ranges wherein nobody lives and thus no federal officials intrude. It also happens to host numerous Native American reservations, where federal taxes and regulations are something that happens to somebody else.

Allow me to be reactionary, therefore, and say the following: America is great, if you can go there, and if you go where there are basically no poor people or immigrants. (Native Americans, ghettoised as they are, don't count.) Where the country is Anglo-white, suburban/rural, and largely comprises the descendants of doughty homesteaders, it is a vaguely low-tax, smaller-government paradise. But this cannot last. For one thing, places like California are getting a bit bolshie. Why? It turns out that, for decades, they've been fulfilling their moral mandate by subsidising states less rich than themselves though their federal taxes. Now suddenly they find themselves in a budgetary hole, and they can't convince those less-rich states to pull them out. You owe us a debt, they claim, despite the fact that the inhabitants of those less-rich states are still, per capita, less rich than Californians. Redistribution, it seems, is not a moral good, but a store of credit, much like a medieval indulgence. The Californians never helped the Louisianans (some of the poorest Americans) out of the goodness of their hearts; they helped in the implicit expectation of getting a return when they fucked themselves. And with their bizarre government-by-plebiscite-and-an-Austrian-movie-star, they did indeed fuck themselves, and now they expect the dispossessed poor of Louisiana (and Mississippi, and Alabama) to help them out of the hole.

Is this what a nation is all about? Monopolistic concessions to health insurance companies, preludes to secession, poor states bailing out rich ones, a government that ignores its own Prime Directive? Where big governments override smaller governments and vice versa, and the only thing holding the place together is the fact that breaking it apart has been tried and failed, and besides, it's still the best place in the world for making money, if making money is what you happen to want?

British libertarians, do not look to America for succour, for it is a sink of redundancy, corruption and fascism. Even if you manage to get in, which would be hard enough even for my husband who is married to an American citizen, expect not an end to ills. Recognise that it is a nation more moribund, more steeped in procedure, tax, and waste than even the United Kingdom. If you think Scotland is a millstone around your neck, imagine the weight of the shackles of California. You will have no relief, no extra freedom unless by accident, no respite from the predations of the moneyed and powerful. Take my word for it. I am an American in Britain. I see no difference, except that as a percentage of my income, I actually pay less tax here. There are many things wrong with the British body politic, but moving to the United States will cure none of them.

Briton: heal thyself.

The Tories and immigration

Yes, I know that I have been banging on about this a lot recently but, as is often the case in the blogosphere, a whole set of circumstances has come together in order to create one or two topical... er... topics. Next week it'll probably be carrot cakes or, given my past form, climate change or political corruption.

Anyway, presumably in the light of the recent Question Time appearance of the BNP's Nick Griffin, John Redwood has felt it necessary to restate Conservative immigration policy, as laid out by Damien Green.

As usual, the policy entirely ignores the mass immigration from the EU—which, of course, the Conservatives have absolutely no power to affect—in favour of disproportionately punishing those from non-EU countries, many of which share rather stronger legal, linguistic and cultural bonds with the British people than the EU countries.

Green also repeats the ridiculous canard that immigrants somehow intrinsically put a strain on our public services and general resources.

Controlling legal migration

First, we plan to introduce an explicit annual limit on the numbers of non-EU economic migrants. This means that there should be an annual limit on the numbers allowed to come here to work from outside the European Union, taking into consideration the effects a rising population has on our public services, transport infrastructure and local communities.

What no one seems to appreciate is that whilst non-EU immigrants have to pay the full amount of tax and NICs, they have extremely limited access to public services. Indeed, non-EU immigrants are not allowed to claim benefits at all (and, incidentally, nor are their spouses).

By contrast, EU immigrants have an automatic right of settlement and are entitled to any and all benefits available to the native population.

Regardless of what I might personally feel about this issue, a failure to deal with the unfettered immigration from the EU will fail to address the issues which politicians claim to care about.

Because, totally unlike the BNP, the Conservatives are not objecting to immigrants because they are diluting the British culture—oh no, definitely not. I would like to make it absolutely clear that Britain's mainstream parties are definitely not like the BNP and are definitely not racist in any way at all.

However, if our politicos are worried about the strain on public services, then they need to worry about those who can use said services—and, incidentally, settle indefinitely in Britain—without having paid a penny into the economy of this country. Which means that they need to address the issue of EU immigrants, not non-EU immigrants.

(Of course, it would help if the money that was supposed to go to public services actually went to those frontline services, rather than being pissed away on legions of bureaucrats.)

But hist! Here is the Tory plan for dealing with this...

A further step we can take to control immigration directly is the imposition of transitional controls for new EU entrants. They should be applied here as they are in other countries.

Ahem. Now, I could be wrong, but I do not believe that the EU will let you impose these controls retrospectively, boys. You may be able to impose temporary controls on, say, Turkish immigrants upon the accession of that country to the EU, but I don't think that you can stop or limit anyone from the current 27 EU members.

As well as having a better controlled immigration system we badly need welfare reform and improved skills training so that we are not simply ignoring millions of British workers, which is why Conservatives have launched a plan to Get Britain Working. We need to do better in making British workers competitive.

Yes, well done. Marginal deduction rates for those on benefits, for instance, are a fucking scandal. And so your plan for Welfare reform is...? Hello? Anyone? Bueller...?

Preventing illegal migration

To reduce the amount of illegal immigration, Conservatives will ensure our borders are properly policed.

Brilliant. And how, exactly, are you going to do this...? And answer came there none.

Look, it may well be that the Conservatives have a secret plan to deal with all of the problems highlighted. The trouble is that I severely doubt it.

I predict that a Conservative government will, quite unjustly, continue to dole out a fucking inhumane kicking to those highly-skilled, hard-working, tax-paying migrants (whose access to the public purse is, in any case, severely restricted) whilst simultaneously ignoring the elephant in the room that is free immigration from the EU.

As a result, the Tories will not achieve any of their stated aims. They will, however, cause misery to thousands of people through a policy that is driven by political expediency and spite.

P.S. Your humble Devil posted his solution to the problem a few weeks ago.

Burying culture

Could Nick Griffin be right, that there has been a deliberate attempt by political elites to destroy the prevailing culture of Britain?

If this article is to be believed, then the answer is, shockingly, "yes".

Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a more multicultural country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

This policy might alienate the "working class vote"? Oh, y'think?

Mind you, this would explain why NuLabour seem to be so keen to expel skilled migrants who want to work—they are likely to be too far right, far too conservative, far too hard-working, to achieve the change that the NuLabour scum apparently wanted.

No: import the unskilled, the radical, the lazy and the stupid. And don't forget to import their families too. Fuck me, what's next—Labour paid for their fucking flights over here?

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

What this actually reminds me of is Sean Gabb's recent speech (which I commented on). In that, Sean revealed what he thought the NuLabour government's real aim was.

The purpose of the Government that took power in 1997 was to bring about a revolutionary transformation of this country—a transformation from which there could be no return to what had been before.

That summation is beginning to look more and more plausible.

Fucking hellski.

That Question Time script in full...

Constantly Furious has kindly transcribed the whole of that Question Time session just for all of those cannot bear to watch the smug awfulness of the actual broadcast. I recommend that you read the whole hilarious transcript, but here's a sample for your delectation...

And what a night it was. A glittering gallery of all the key figures, the big beasts, in British politics: MP Chris WhoHe of extremist minority party the "Lib Dems", Jack 'thought he'd retired?' Straw for Labour, Sayeeda WhoShe for Conservatives and Bonnie Greer, a random American writer, filling that vital role of black-person-sat-right-next-to-nasty-Nick-ha-ha.

Through his contacts with the BBC (you just press '1' on the remote), CF is able to bring you a full transcript of what was probably the most tedious controversial Question Time yet.

Dimbleby: "Good evening. I'd like to welcome our panel tonight. Well, all of them bar one of course"
[audience laughs nervously]
Griffin: "I .."
[audience boos, ecstatically]
Dimblebore: "That's really quite enough from you, Mr Griffin"
[enthusiastic applause. Cries of 'quite right']
Dumbledore: "First, I must just apologise for the screaming and breaking glass you may be able to hear. I'm told that the UAF have peacefully stormed the building and are now peacefully smashing the place up".
Dumbledore: "and so, to our first question. Gentlemen with the cross face.."
Angry Asian: "Nick. Is it that you love Churchill and hate Muslims, innit?"
[applause]
Nick Griffin: "I didn't.."
Baroness Wassup [interrupting]: "Yes, you do, don't you, you do"
[prolonged applause]
Dumbledore: "Moving on now. I've got photos' Mr Griffin, of you standing near a man from the Klu Klux Klan. Does the very existence of these photo's not prove, beyond doubt, that you'd very much like to strap a black man to the front of your pickup and drive all round the bayou at high speed?"
Nick Griffin: "Well, I.."
Bonnie Greer [interrupting]: "Don't you try to tell me about no KKK. I'm American."

Indeed you are, Bonnie, and your impeccable right-on credentials were proved when you talked historical bollocks to Griffin—attacking him whenever you were able.

Then, Bonnie, you courageously shut the fuck up whilst the vile Establishment politicos happily chuntered away about the measures that their mainstream parties were taking to ensure that Americans like you, Bonnie, would not now be able to enter this country—let alone be able to stay and patronise wall-eyed loons on TV. Still, I shouldn't imagine that you are any stranger to hypocrisy, eh, Bonnie?

So I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, Bonnie Greer: truly, your ability to stand up to one man's bigotry, discrimination and injustice is to be applauded. What a pity that you, the Deputy Chariman of the National Museum, found yourself unable to stand up against bigotry, discrimination and injustice when it was advocated by your paymasters.

Yes, it was a pity—but hardly a surprise.

MSM Moron of the Day: Philip Johnson

As regular readers will know, your humble Devil is married to an American citizen who has been a victim of the disgustingly unfair and draconian immigration system currently extant in this country.^*

As such, I found last night's Question Time—during which Nick Griffin, Saida Warsi, Jack Straw and Chris Huhne tried to outdo each other in proposing ever more unfair, damaging and authoritarian legislation—enraging and thoroughly repulsive.

Of course, we should all note that the intelligentsia's fear of immigration is absolutely not in any way the same as the BNP's fear of immigration and you would be a fool and a racist to suggest such a thing.

No, these politicos were simply trying to pander to the bigotry and ignorance of a certain section of the British people suggest sensible ways of limiting immigration in order to defuse the more extreme views of Griffin. Which is, of course, much more sensible than trying to educate the viewers about the complicated arguments around immigration.

How fortunate for us all that the MSM also cannot be bothered to make that effort, as proved by a spectacularly moronic article in today's Telegraph.

Politicians appear unconcerned about the immigration-fuelled boom in Britain's population—despite the strain on schools, hospitals and quality of life. Unless we take action, the country will face an environmental nightmare, says Philip Johnston.

As I have pointed out, politicians do not seem to be unconcerned at all—in fact, they are outdoing themselves in their rush to close Britain's borders to skilled immigrants. But, leaving that aside, this article spouts some utter horseshit.

The first thing to note is that this country can hardly be described as over-crowded. In fact, the density of population in the country as a whole is pretty minimal.

Scale down the UK. To 99 football pitches.

All built up areas plus gardens would be 6 of those football pitches.

Of course, you might disagree or, more pertinently, point out that the South East is pretty densely populated. However, I thought I'd just put the whole issue into perspective, i.e. there's plenty of fucking space.

However, Philip Johnson's true ignorance and stupidity is shown in this paragraph.

Indeed, it has always been the case that in order to have economic growth it is necessary to have more people. Countries whose populations stagnate and decline are countries with no future.

Bzzzzzzt! Wrong! Thank you for playing, Mr Johnson, but you are totally fucking wrong. I am no economist, but even I spotted this hideous falsehood.

However, I shan't bother to explain why you are wrong, Phil; instead, I shall pass those reins over to Timmy.

If economic growth were a matter of just having more people then there would be no rise in the size of the economy per capita, would there? And given that we do have economic growth per capita then ….well, you see the problem.

It’s possible to make a weaker claim, that we can only have economic growth per capita if we have a growing population but that too is nonsense. The onward march of technology, our ability to add more value to resources over time will lead to continued economic growth.

There’s just one special case where the assertion might be true: if population if falling faster than growth per capita is growing. Take a reasonable historical (for the capitalist world) average: 3% growth in GDP per capita over the years. If population is falling at 4% a year then total GDP will be falling while the living standards are rising. And as it’s that latter that we care about, not the former, even in this special case we don’t actually care.

And this is why the commenters at The Kitchen who bang on about population decline are also consistently wrong. A declining population does not mean declining growth.

In fact, if growth continues at a reasonable rate and the population declines, this is immensely good news. Why? Because it means that individuals are all getting richer.

If I have ten quid, and have to divide it amongst ten people, then they each have a quid. If, on the other hand, there are only five people to divide that tenner amongst, then everyone gets £2. They are twice as rich. Excellent!

Needless to say, the rest of the article is the same old scare-mongering bollocks. Instead of some reasonable cost-benefit analysis of immigration, all that we get is MSM twats and political tosspots trying to outdo each other in pandering to the BNP-voting section of the population.

But, as I said, these people's fear of immigration is definitely not the same as Nick Griffin's. Definitely not.

Understand?

UPDATE: in response to Andy's comment, I shall repost my solution to the problem.

So, here is my proposed solution, and it is a solution designed to be implemented tomorrow—that is, it assumes that we are still in the EU, etc. So, here it is: no immigrant may claim benefits until they have been working—and contributing tax (i.e. cash in hand work will not count)—for four years.

But wait! The EU will not let us treat EU citizens any differently to British citizens. Great! The same thing applies across the board, for British citizens too.

When National Insurance was first implemented, you had to have been paying in for a certain amount of time—and earned your "stamps"—before you could start getting payouts. To an extent, this is still the case, but other benefits are not, theoretically, part of the National Insurance system, so they are paid out without any requirement to have paid in.

This should stop, right now.

So, everyone—regardless of where they are from originally—gets treated in exactly the same way: no one shall receive any benefits until they have paid tax into the system for four years (an arbitrary number—we could make it higher, if you like, or lower—four years seems a reasonable time to me).

In this way, we can stop paying for people's lifestyle choices (including encouraging the feckless to have children); we can diffuse the resentment based on the "bloody immigrants, coming here and stealing our benefits" argument; we give people an incentive to pay tax rather than do cash-in-hand work; we stop people coming here with massive families in order to soak our ridiculously generous benefits system (and thus reduce immigration); we can remove these spiteful bars to non-EU immigrants working (and thus allow private companies to hire who the fuck they want); it will provide us with an incentive to ensure that our schooling is up to scratch (since natives will be competing with immigrants on an equal footing); it allows us to open our borders to those who want to come and work here (and neutralises Hayek's problems with doing so whilst a Welfare State exists); and, of course, we will substantially reduce our social security bill.

So, to be explicit, fewer (or no) border controls but also no benefits.

Those who want to work—native or immigrant—can work: those who don't will get no support.

^* Should you be a non-EU citizen interested in working in this country, here's the Devil's handy guide to just how much it will cost you.

It's one law for us... #1

Baroness Scotland: fucked.

The Lady Scotland affair rumbles on, with the noble Baroness having dodged paying tax on her housekeeper's wages.

A Mail on Sunday investigation has discovered that Britain’s most senior lawyer flouted a series of basic regulations.

We can reveal that she failed to deduct income tax from Loloahi Tapui’s wages for the first ten weeks of employment. And Ms Tapui claims the Peer did not give her payslips or a formal employment contract.

The Baroness first faced calls to resign after it was disclosed that she had employed Ms Tapui, 27, without correctly checking her immigration status. She avoided the sack but was fined £5,000 by the UK Border Agency.

Now our inquiries have prompted fresh questions about her judgment.

Baroness Scotland wrote Ms Tapui’s weekly pay cheques to the housekeeper’s husband, solicitor Alexander Zivancevic, from her Coutts bank account.

Ms Tapui asked her to do this, saying she did not have a bank account, which should have made the Peer suspicious of her employee’s immigration status.

Ms Tapui also claims she was never given a written contract or wage slips, contravening the Employment Rights Act 1996.

She adds that the Peer only clarified her tax position after the MPs’ expenses scandal broke in May.

Let me make it quite clear—again—why these breaches are significant (because, let's face it, your humble Devil does not think that cheating the taxman is of any moral significance): first, it is because Lady Scotland is the government's top legal adviser and, second, because she has helped to draft and push through many of these laws.

These laws have been used to harass and punish many ordinary, hard-working men and women of this country.

And because our law-makers must—must—live under the same laws that they make for us. We already know that they have given themselves exemptions from some laws—this is absolutely beyond the pale but, alas, entirely legal.

So, where they have broken laws that do apply to them, as well as us, they must be hounded and harried with exactly the same fervour as we would be.

This is not purely out of spite (although, I'll grant you, there' s most definitely some) but because, if the laws are bad, then these bastards might be moved to change them and thus benefit us all.

That is the general argument.

In the case of Lady Scotland in particular, her inability to abide by the law—presumably, we assume, out of ignorance—throw serious doubt on her ability to do the job of Attorney-General.

And the news of two high-profile cases of government illegality—in the share capital case and in the video rating system—provide further evidence of her unfitness for the job.

Baroness Scotland has got to go—for reasons that are both ideological and practical.

Baroness Scotland: teller of tall tales

And so the Baroness Scotland saga rumbles on—not least because spiteful bloggers like myself, finding it incredibly amusing to see this loathsome hypocrite banged to rights, just won't let it die. Or, at least, not until I have seen her actually die, and her head stuck on a fucking pole outside the Tower of London.

Anyway, you'll remember that the Baroness issued a statement saying that she had seen her illegal employee's passport. In fact, the quote was precisely this: [Emphasis mine.]

"I was shown all relevant documents—a P45, National Insurance details, a marriage certificate, a letter from the Home Office, references and a passport—by Ms Tapui during her job interviews."

Indeed, the Baroness has reiterated her position. [Emphasis mine.]

Lady Scotland restated her position, saying: "For the record, as I have said previously, I was shown all relevant documents—a P45, National Insurance details, a marriage certificate, a letter from the Home Office, references, and a passport—by Ms Tapui during her job interviews. I have nothing further to add."

Now, Baroness Scotland was fined £5,000 because she did not take copies of these documents as the law—a law that she herself helped to conceive, draft and vote through Parliament—stated that she should.

As such, neither the UK Border Agency nor the general public have any proof whatsoever that Baroness Scotland did, indeed, check these documents.

Never mind, our monocular cunt of a Prime Minister believed that no further action should be taken against Baroness Scotland—who is, lest we forget, the Attorney General and thus the government's chief law adviser—because she had seen these documents.

But because she had not knowingly employed an illegal worker and had checked documents Mr Brown believed "no further action" was necessary.

Of course, in common with both the UKBA and the British people, the Gobblin' King had absolutely no proof of this whatsoever because there is none.

Which means, of course, that if someone popped up and said that the Baroness had not, in fact, checked Loloahi Tapui's documents—and, specifically, her passport—then there might be a few repercussions.

Oh look! Someone has actually done that—in fact, Loloahi Tapui herself!

The former housekeeper to Attorney General Baroness Scotland has claimed the peer never asked to see her passport before giving her a job.

Speaking exclusively to the Mail on Sunday, Loloahi Tapui, an illegal immigrant from Tonga, claimed she was given work after a 10-minute interview.

Baroness Scotland—fined last week for failing to take copies of Ms Tapui's documents - insists she saw a passport.
...

In [the interview], the 27-year-old insists a passport—reported to contain a forged and out-of-date visa—found in her West London home during a raid by UK Border Agency officials is the only one she possesses.

She says she has been in Britain illegally for five years, since her student visa ran out, and is prepared to take a lie-detector test to prove she is telling the truth.

"I do not understand why [Baroness Scotland] said that she saw my passport because I know I'm illegal," she tells the Mail on Sunday.

"Why [would] I provide my passport because I know [that if I did] I would not get employed by her."

Good question. As such, one can conclude, I think, that "one of the few Black women in public life" has been slightly... ah... economical with the truth.

In other words, she's a stinking fucking liar. And a crook, to boot.

The ball's back in your court, Gordon, you fucknuts.

P.S. For those few of you who haven't seen it yet (though I alluded to it in my question for the Lords), Baroness Scotland has previous in terms of being a filthy hypocrite.

[Lady Scotland] was responsible for announcing tougher sentences for careless motorists who kill when she was a Home Office minister.

Lady Scotland confessed to the driving offence in an interview with this newspaper conducted in April 1991, when she was made the first black woman in Britain to be made a QC.

Asked if she had ever broken the law, the then Patricia Scotland “confessed to a careless driving conviction—she had been coming into a major road in London when a taxi hit her”.

A taxi hit her... And yet she was the one given the conviction for careless driving. Hmmmm.

Could it be that Lady Scotland is, once again, being a bit disingenuous? Could she be telling a bit of a Passport porky-pie? Who can tell?

But let's just say that if you believe her, Baroness Scotland also has a really lovely bridge that she'd like to sell you...

P.P.S. It seems that Gordon is utterly desperate not to loose Lady Scotland's special services (whatever they may be, exactly)—so much so that he was willing to do a colossal u-turn on ministers' expenses.

BARONESS SCOTLAND was saved from facing questions about her expenses last week by a swift government U-turn that at a stroke changed its policy on allowances.

The Sunday Times revealed last week that Scotland had received £170,000 from an allowance intended for ministers in the House of Lords who live outside London. This was despite the fact that the baroness has owned a family home in the capital for 15 years and tells the Lords it is her main address.

Before our article, the Cabinet Office could not have been more clear that Scotland should have received the allowance only if her main home was outside the capital.

However, less than 24 hours after the article was published, Baroness Royall, the leader of the Lords, sanctioned a statement by the Cabinet Office which overturned all its previous advice. It said the allowance was available to all lords who serve as ministers, regardless of where they live.

This, of course, means that other ministers can start claiming loads more of our lovely lolly in order to shore up their disgustingly depraved lifestyles. Thanks a fucking bunch, Gordo.

Yeah, sure: why not give lots more money away, Gordo? After all, it's only money. It's fucking magic money that falls from the fucking sky, ain't it, Gordon? It's definitely not the product of other people's hard work, is it, you one-eyed freak?

Of course, in Gordoland, it isn't actually our money—it is the state's money and the goverment can spend as much of that cash as it likes on as many pointless and wasteful projects as it likes. And what we are allowed to keep we should be fucking grateful for.

And the state still lets us keep nearly half of what we earn, so we should be ever so fucking grateful.

Now remember, fellow proles, to doff your fucking cap as the minister drives by...

UPDATE: and now it seems that Lady Scotland is in trouble with the Bar Standards Board.

The latest revelations come as her professional body was urged to launch a highly embarrassing investigation into her conduct.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that the Bar Standards Board has received a number of complaints about the beleaguered Cabinet minister, who was fined £5,000 for employing an illegal immigrant.
...

The Bar Standards Board does not normally investigate complaints about a lawyer's private life, but its own guidelines acknowledge that such an inquiry may be launched in "exceptional circumstances".

A spokeswoman for the board declined to comment about Lady Scotland's case and refused to disclose how many complaints had been received.

Senior legal sources have told this newspaper that the Bar Standards Board would have no alternative but to carry out an inquiry into whether the QC breached the barristers' code of conduct and brought the legal profession into disrepute.

The board was created just three years ago as part of the Bar's attempt to retain its self-regulating role, and failing to act could leave the organisation open to criticism, said lawyers.

"I have no doubt that the Bar Standards Board will deal with this properly and take appropriate action," said one QC.

Members of the disciplinary panel may now have to consider whether Lady Scotland's activities have been "dishonest or otherwise discreditable to a barrister".

The board has the power to disbar a lawyer who is found to have committed a serious breach of the code. Even if a lesser punishment is imposed – such as a fine, suspension or reprimand – it could be fatal to Lady Scotland's political career.

Any inquiry is likely to focus on whether the legal profession has been tarnished by Lady Scotland's breach of immigration laws and the imposition of a £5,000 fine, but Lady Scotland could face even more difficult questions if her version of events differs from the account given by Ms Tapui.

David Davies, the Conservative MP for Monmouth, was among those who asked the Bar Standards Board to examine the case.

Mr Davies said: "If Gordon Brown cannot bring himself to discipline her then the Bar Standards Board should look into whether she has breached her professional code.

"I would have thought that Lady Scotland has obviously brought discredit on to barristers through all this."

Strange though the concept may seem, I think that Baroness Scotland has made people think even less of lawyers than they already do. Further, our lunatic Cyclopean PM's refusal to sack her suggests that the legal profession is rather too close to our government for comfort.

It's all gone a bit Pete Tongan for "one of the few Black women in public life"...

Baroness Scotland: breaking the law is like "overpaying the congestion charge"

Oh, look! Via Guido (who also reports that the ugly baggage has been reported to the Bar Standards Board), Baroness Scotland is on the TV!

"... that I got caught." [Alright, I made that bit up. Convenient break in the video though, eh?]

I'll bet that the Attorney General is sorry after being found guilty of breaking a law that she brought in—she has been fined £5,000 (half of the possible maximum).

Attorney General Baroness Scotland has been fined £5,000 after being found to have employed a housekeeper who was not legally allowed to work in the UK.

The UK Border Agency said she took steps to check Tongan Loloahi Tapui's right to work but had not kept a copy of documents, as required by law.

Opposition parties say her position is "untenable" but No 10 said it was an "inadvertent" mistake.

She apologised for the "technical breach" and said she accepted the fine.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. This is not a fucking "technical breach": this was—and I'll say it again—a breaking of the law that you introduced. It was a hideous, spiteful law that should never have seen the light of day and not only did you help bring it in, but you have also—somehow—weaseled your way into being the government's chief adviser on legal matters.

At the very least, you are an incompetent fuckwit who is not fit to hold such an important job, my dear Baroness; at worst, you are a lying, hypocritical, law-breaking shithole.

Given her position, Baroness Scotland should have been fined the full £10,000; since she cannot possibly have been ignorant of a law that she introduced, one can conclude that she deliberately flaunted it and with deception aforethought.

In a statement, Downing Street said: "The UK Border Agency is satisfied she did not knowingly employ an illegal worker. She examined documents of her status. She paid tax and National Insurance on her earnings. She employed her new cleaner in good faith.

"But regrettably she did not retain copies of the documents proving the right to work she was given. As a result she is paying an administrative penalty."

It added that breaches of the law were taken "seriously" and the PM had consulted the cabinet secretary about whether the ministerial code had been breached.

But because she had not knowingly employed an illegal worker and had checked documents Mr Brown believed "no further action" was necessary.

So, the only proof that she saw these documents is... Oh, wait: there is none. Nada. Nowt. Nothing.

Never mind, I am sure that the Devon farmer I posted about a while back—who was given an on-the-spot fine of £10,000 per worker—will be treated equally leniently, eh? No further action need be taken, I imagine...?

Still, thrilled as I am to see Baroness Scotland fined—though not, it appears, humbled—I believe that one of the best posts about this comes from Jackart. [Emphasis mine.]

She wanted to work, and indeed pay tax. Which makes Loloahi Tapui a more valuable citizen than 15% of the native-born population who sit on their fat arses watching Jeremy Kyle and reading the Sun (those who can actually read), and who don't get their doors kicked in by uniformed thugs in the pay of the state, which instead subsidises their idleness through a complex smorgasbord of 51 different benefits which ensure that no-one born in the UK has to work if they don't want to, and indeed get punished with marginal withdrawal rates of 90% should they even try.

Borders are an affront to human dignity, as is the welfare state.

Quite: that last line is succinctly put, and quite correct. But then, governments have never really been worried about human dignity—especially not the current crop. After all, would someone who possessed dignity go around pilfering petty cash from the taxpayer...?

Speaking of which, my dear Baroness... About that £170,000 that you stole...

UPDATE: I love this piece of logic from The Nameless Libertarian...

So, she broke a law that she helped to draft. And she has been fined for it. Yet, according to Gordon Brown, she doesn't have to resign. It really does beg the question of what the fuck someone has to in order to have to resign in the world of Gordon Brown. Unless, of course, the law she broke doesn't need to be adhered to. In which case is this law strictly speaking necessary? And if not, then surely the person who helped to bring it onto the statute books should resign?

Can't say fairer than that, eh?

Now, really... About that £170,000...

On the spot fines: putting the Border Agency on the spot

Via The Englishman, I see that a farmer is facing a massive fine for employing illegal workers.

A farm owner from Devon who is facing a fine of up to £120,000 for employing illegal workers says he had taken precautions to check their credentials.

Twelve workers were arrested by Border Agency officials after a raid on 1 July at Merrifield Farm in Crediton.
...

Farm owner Peter Coleman may now face a fine of up to £10,000 for every illegal worker.

He told BBC News: "We do our best to comply with regulations.

"We have a very good database of all employees and we have a list of passports and proof of identity.

"But the biggest problem for employers is to prove the identity of the person.

"We are not experts in forgery."

If he did check and copy their credentials, then I am sure—after spending fucking thousands of pounds on lawyers in order to prove his innocence—that Mr Coleman will be able to avoid the fine.

Or, rather, to be able to reclaim the money that he will be forced to pay, having been allegedly handed an on-the-spot fine.

Mr Coleman was handed an on-the-spot penalty notice by immigration officials that could mean a fine of up to £10,000 for each illegal worker.
...

A spokesman for the UK Border Agency said: "Mr Coleman was issued with a fixed penalty notice following the raid.

"That civil action is still pending.

"To avoid being fined, Mr Coleman must prove to the UK Border Agency that he has carried out the correct checks before giving the workers jobs."

Um... I'm sorry? You fucking what? Mr Coleman was issued with a fixed penalty notice?

So, what you are saying is that far from the state having to prove Mr Coleman's guilt, Mr Coleman has to prove his innocence? Seriously, what the fuck?

But, leaving that aside, can we assume that Baroness Scotland has been handed a £10,000 fixed penalty notice? She hasn't?

Well, fuck me!—ain't that a surprise?

P.S. It's worth noting why Mr Coleman was forced to hire immigrant workers.

He said he had problems finding British people to work on the farm which processes chickens and ducks.

He said: "We approached the Job Centre.

"We offered employment to 58 out of the 59 people that applied, 55 of which were British.

"Four were unsuitable and asked to leave and five are still with us.

"The other 46 found the job not to their liking and left or did not turn up in the first place."

It is not the job of the British taxpayer to subsidise the lifestyles of those who choose not to work. We should find those British people who did not turn up to work and stop all of their benefits—it is the only way that these lazy cunts will learn.

If we remove the benefits of those who will not work, then they will have to work. This will reduce the amount of work available for immigrants, and thus reduce the number of immigrants coming here (and, yes, I know that this won't be an instantaneous effect).

For crying out loud, it's really not very difficult.

UPDATE: as the wife pointed out last night, it's a strange country that punishes those who are the victims of fraud...

For the record

Your humble Devil replied to this silly post at Liberal Conspiracy. Given that my comments there often get tampered with or deleted (because Sunny, like many Leftist demagogues, isn't too keen on people questioning his judgement), I thought that I'd record it here for posterity.

If I wanted to be charitable to Hannan, I’d say that his position is that we’ve got to decide one way or the other: either we let people come to the UK but without benefits for doing so, or we limit immigration and we enforce our laws properly.

Everyone is talking about "immigration" and "immigrants" as though there were only one type. There aren't.

There are two types of immigrant to this country: EU citizens and non-EU citizens.

EU citizens—through EU law—must be allowed all of the same benefits as the natives. That means that they can claim the same benefits, use the same services, etc. and have complete freedom to move or settle in any EU country.

As some people may know, over the last six months or more, I have been dealing with the British government's disgusting and inhuman attitude to the second set of immigrants—the non-EU citizen.

Non-EU citizens are not allowed any benefits, despite paying full taxes. Non-EU citizens are often not allowed to stay in the country if they have no job—the most common Tier 2 visa is tied to an immigrant's job: if they lose the job, they have to leave the country immediately (it doesn't matter whether they can still support themselves, through savings, etc. They have to leave).

The problems that we have are not with the latter group: it is not they who are putting a strain on public services. The problem is with the EU citizens, mainly from poorer parts of the EU, who we must treat as though they were natives.

Now, whichever of the two approaches above you consider to be right (or, like me, you might consider that the both of them are completely stupid) doesn't tremendously matter—but any debate on immigration must acknowledge the fact that not all immigrants are equal in this country.

DK

Regular readers will know, of course, that your humble Devil proposed his own solution to the immigration problem.

So, here is my proposed solution, and it is a solution designed to be implemented tomorrow—that is, it assumes that we are still in the EU, etc. So, here it is: no immigrant may claim benefits until they have been working—and contributing tax (i.e. cash in hand work will not count)—for four years.

But wait! The EU will not let us treat EU citizens any differently to British citizens. Great! The same thing applies across the board, for British citizens too.

When National Insurance was first implemented, you had to have been paying in for a certain amount of time—and earned your "stamps"—before you could start getting payouts. To an extent, this is still the case, but other benefits are not, theoretically, part of the National Insurance system, so they are paid out without any requirement to have paid in.

This should stop, right now.

So, everyone—regardless of where they are from originally—gets treated in exactly the same way: no one shall receive any benefits until they have paid tax into the system for four years (an arbitrary number—we could make it higher, if you like, or lower—four years seems a reasonable time to me).

In this way, we can stop paying for people's lifestyle choices (including encouraging the feckless to have children); we can diffuse the resentment based on the "bloody immigrants, coming here and stealing our benefits" argument; we give people an incentive to pay tax rather than do cash-in-hand work; we stop people coming here with massive families in order to soak our ridiculously generous benefits system (and thus reduce immigration); we can remove these spiteful bars to non-EU immigrants working (and thus allow private companies to hire who the fuck they want); it will provide us with an incentive to ensure that our schooling is up to scratch (since natives will be competing with immigrants on an equal footing); it allows us to open our borders to those who want to come and work here (and neutralises Hayek's problems with doing so whilst a Welfare State exists); and, of course, we will substantially reduce our social security bill.

This seems to be a sensible solution to me, and it stops the disgustingly racist separation of non-EU and EU citizens (yes, it is racist, since it is based on where you come from and thus your race) that is inherent in our two-tier immigration system.

Oh, yes: and it stops hard-working people who want to remain here from being kicked out of the fucking country by a bunch of inhumane, jack-booted shitstains who, frankly, make our country look like some kind of fucking authoritarian's pleasure-ground.

Oh, wait...

Immigrants and the "social contract"

Having railed against the repulsive attitude that this country has to immigrants, it is time to propose a solution—and it is a solution that could solve other problems too.

NuLabour has cracked down hard on non-EU immigrants because this is the only way of responding to the perceived problem of immigration. The main problem with immigration—provided you are not simply a BNP morons who hates the sight of "darkies"—is that they take up resources, such as benefits.

The trouble is that non-EU immigrants cannot claim benefits and so they tend to be the ones that work. Many EU citizens work too, but they are allowed to bring in families that are eligible for benefits and do not work at all.

Our benefits bill is reaching ever closer to the £200 billion mark—it is becoming utterly unsustainable.

So, here is my proposed solution, and it is a solution designed to be implemented tomorrow—that is, it assumes that we are still in the EU, etc. So, here it is: no immigrant may claim benefits until they have been working—and contributing tax (i.e. cash in hand work will not count)—for four years.

But wait! The EU will not let us treat EU citizens any differently to British citizens. Great! The same thing applies across the board, for British citizens too.

When National Insurance was first implemented, you had to have been paying in for a certain amount of time—and earned your "stamps"—before you could start getting payouts. To an extent, this is still the case, but other benefits are not, theoretically, part of the National Insurance system, so they are paid out without any requirement to have paid in.

This should stop, right now.

So, everyone—regardless of where they are from originally—gets treated in exactly the same way: no one shall receive any benefits until they have paid tax into the system for four years (an arbitrary number—we could make it higher, if you like, or lower—four years seems a reasonable time to me).

In this way, we can stop paying for people's lifestyle choices (including encouraging the feckless to have children); we can diffuse the resentment based on the "bloody immigrants, coming here and stealing our benefits" argument; we give people an incentive to pay tax rather than do cash-in-hand work; we stop people coming here with massive families in order to soak our ridiculously generous benefits system (and thus reduce immigration); we can remove these spiteful bars to non-EU immigrants working (and thus allow private companies to hire who the fuck they want); it will provide us with an incentive to ensure that our schooling is up to scratch (since natives will be competing with immigrants on an equal footing); it allows us to open our borders to those who want to come and work here (and neutralises Hayek's problems with doing so whilst a Welfare State exists); and, of course, we will substantially reduce our social security bill.

A lot of people on the Left tend to witter on about the "social contract". Now, your humble Devil cannot remember voluntarily signing such a thing—however, if one is being generous, one could assume that paying tax is when you start contributing your part to the "social contract".

If you don't pay in, then you shouldn't get the benefits. It's that simple.

This is a easy-to-understand, reasonable and ratinal response to a good number of the problems that we have in this country.

Any questions?

Immigrant? Want to work? Here's an easy guide...

Are you a non-EU immigrant? Would you like to live and work in this country? Excellent: let me take you through the process.

It's only fair to let you know what you're in for, so here's a few caveats:

• If you get a job, you have to pay the full lot of tax—but you cannot claim any benefits.


• If you are American and you pay less tax here than you would in the US, then you have to make up the difference. The Federal government will come and find you if you do not.


• You will need to carry a biometric ID with you at all times. Yes, I know that you do not have to in theory, but it is wise to do so. As a reminder, this card is not for claiming benefits, because you aren't allowed any.


• Do get used to being treated as a second class citizen. This is only natural and just, because you are taking our jobs. You are also taking our beenfits, even though you aren't allowed to claim any. Do you see?

Now, getting a job in this country is easy. Of course. Here's how it goes:

• You manage to get into this country: this may be on a student, holiday or spousal visa.


• You would like to stay here and work? Wonderful. There are, of course, a couple of hoops that you need to jump through.
  
  • You need to apply for A Leave To Remain Visa. This will cost you some £350. Please note that you are not allowed to work here yet—so the money will have to come from whatever you have saved recently.
  
  
  • You have leave to remain? Excellent. Now you have to apply for the Permission To Work Visa—this will cost you £450. Please note that you are not allowed to work here yet—so the money will have to come from whatever you have saved recently.


• You now have two choices, depending on some arbitrary fucking bollocks thought up by this piece of shit government.
  
  • Tier 1 visa: this gives you permission to work without your employer sponsoring you (see below). You will have to keep £800 Maintenance Requirement in your bank account at all times for the three months prior to application. On top of this, you will have to pay an £820 administration fee.
    
    You will need to get enough points to stay. This basically means that you need to have a Masters degree, be under 28, and have earned a substantial amount of money in this country. You can try to prove earnings in another country, but please note that these will be extraordinarily unrealistic.
    
    Please put your submission in carefully. If the Border Agency gives you the wrong information, and even if they admit culpability, they will turn you down and keep your money. Oh, and you will have no right of appeal. At all. None. Even though they gave you the wrong information. This is because they want you to fuck off.
  
  
  • Tier 2 visa: you can get a job, but your leave to remain is attached to the job—if you lose your job, you have to fuck off home. Immediately. With no appeal.
    
    There's no Maintenance Requirement though: all you need to do is to get a job. This is easy, because you are qualified, right? There are just a couple of conditions on your employer.
    
    First, your employer has to become an official sponsor of non-EU immigrants: this will cost them an £800 administration fee, plus massive lawyers fees and time, i.e. more money.
    
    Second, they have to prove that they cannot find an EU citizen who could do the job as well or better. To do this, they have to advertise the job for a minimum of two weeks in government-approved outlets: then they have to prove that, of all the candidates, no one could do the job better than you.
    
    Simples, eh?

What do you mean, "you've failed"? OK, now you could try marrying a British citizen. Let's say that you have been going out with someone rather super for about eight months, and you would like to get married: is simples!

• First, fill out the permission to marry form. The government no longer charges you a £295 fee to process this, but you do need to have three months left on your Leave To Remain Visa—or a really good excuse as to why you don't. Please note that you may well be asked to give the whole history of your relationship up to this point—and the plans for the wedding and reception (including reservation receipts, etc.).


• You are married—well done! Now you have to fill in your Leave To Remain On Grounds Of Marriage Form. This will cost you £350. The Border Agency will want to see proof that you married because you love each other—please be ready to show them pictures of the reception, and the honeymoon and, basically, the bloodied wedding night sheet. Please note that, if you do not have the money to have an expensive reception or honeymoon, the Border Agency might decide that the whole thing is a scam and throw you out anyway.


• You've got the Leave To Remain? Well done. Please note that you cannot work for six months, at least, thus ensuring that your spouse—busy carrying all of the wedding, reception and honeymoon bills—will be fucking destitute for the next six months.
  
  Please note: you are still not allowed to claim any benefits.


• If you would like to work after six months, you will need to fill out the Permission To Work Visa. This will cost you—and your spouse—another £450. This is entirely natural—we cannot have you scum coming over here and taking our jobs.

Have you got through all that? Well done: welcome to Britain, land of freedom and tolerance.

Please remember to carry your biometric ID at all times.

P.S. As Patrick points out in the comments, if you would like to remain, please ensure that you don't do anything "unpatriotic".

IMMIGRANTS will be denied British passports if they are judged unpatriotic under a new citizenship system.

Foreigners would have to earn points to become British citizens in plans to be announced tomorrow by Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

But they will be penalised for what is deemed "unBritish" behaviour.

Home Office sources said that would cover unpatriotic acts like protesting against British troops.

Applicants would also be denied passports if they have a history of anti-social behaviour—even if they have never been convicted.

Please also note that the definition of unpariotic is at the whim of the Home Office, utterly undefined in law, and generally designed to ensure that they can deport you at any time they like—unless you behave.

Please also note that the Tories have utterly failed to comment on any of this, so please don't think that a vote for them will help your situation.

Of course, you cannot vote anyway, so what the fuck do they care, eh?

P.P.S. Please remember to carry your biometric ID at all times.