EU chiefs want to let in an extra 20 million immigrants from Africa and Asia

Skilled migrants would be granted special 'blue cards' giving them the right to settle in member states, including Britain - if the Government agrees.

Britain has an 'opt-in' to ideas from Brussels it supports and is not bound by EU policy on immigration and asylum.

But a blue card - similar to the green cards issued by the US - could circumvent any opt-out by Britain.

The card would entitle skilled migrants to work in a member state for two years and then move to a second EU country after two or three years.

The workers could apply to stay permanently after five consecutive years in any EU state.

Opponents said that even if Britain opts out of the Commission's proposal, it will not stop many of the migrants coming here eventually.

Once they gain citizenship of another EU country they are entitled to free movement throughout the 27 member states.

Home affairs commissioner Franco Frattini said an influx of migrants was needed to plug skills gaps in the EU economy caused by a declining, ageing population.

And he called on member states to stop viewing immigration as a threat and erecting barriers to arrivals. The reforms could more than double the EU's foreign-born population by 2030.

The resident population of non-EU citizens in EU countries was about 18.5million last year - almost 4 per cent of the total population.

The Tories opposed the move last night. Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said: "The fact that under these proposals anyone who has lived for five years anywhere in the EU would be allowed to stay permanently makes a mockery of any Government claim they have the option of opting in to this.

"Since this would be likely to be in addition to already large-scale immigration, the stress placed on housing, public services and community relations in the UK would be enormous.

"We would introduce an explicit annual limit on the numbers of non-EU migrants who can come to the UK which would be set by Parliament.

"It is vital that the Government retains complete control over who is allowed to come to the UK and should not allow the EU to create loopholes or back doors that would make a mockery of a sensible wellbalanced immigration system."

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the campaign group Migrationwatch UK, said: "This is more of the usual Euro-babble. One size does not fit all. In the UK, 83 per cent of our population growth is down to immigration.

Mr Frattini told a conference in Lisbon, Portugal, yesterday: "We have to look at immigration as an enrichment and as a inescapable phenomenon of today's world, not as a threat.

"Eighty-five per cent of unskilled labour goes to the EU and only 5 per cent to the USA, whereas 55 per cent of skilled labour goes to the USA and only 5 per cent to the EU. We have to reverse these figures with a new vision."

Germany has already rejected the idea. Its economy minister, Michael Glos, said it could not accept an influx of foreign job seekers just because it had a temporary skilled labour shortage.

A spokesman for the Home Office said last night: "The European Commission has not yet issued any proposals for a blue card scheme but we would consider any such proposals carefully.

"The UK has the right to opt in to EU measures on immigration and we would only decide to do this if the proposals were consistent with our national approach to managed migration.

"The Government is committed to controlling migration and boosting Britain's economy by bringing in the right skills from around the world.

"We have already established a Highly Skilled Migrants programme that prioritises entry into the UK for those with the right skills.

"We are also managing numbers in the national interest by moving into a tough Australian-style points based migration system for those seeking to work in the UK who come from outside the European Economic Area."

The Camp of the Saints

Jean Raspail
Translated by Gerda Bikales**

The novel The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail (Paris: Editions Robert Laffont, 1973) has stirred new controversy recently having been cited in several stories in U.S. magazines and newspapers. To help our readers understand the author’s perspective, The Social Contract asked advisory board member Gerda Bikales to translate from the French his preface to the third edition, 1985.

Published for the first time in 1973, Camp of the Saints is a novel that anticipates a situation which seems plausible today and foresees a threat that no longer seems unbelievable to anyone it describes the peaceful invasion of France, and then of the West, by a third world burgeoned into multitudes. At all levels — global consciousness, governments, societies, and especially every person within himself — the question is asked belatedly what’s to be done?

What’s to be done, since no one would wish to renounce his own human dignity by acquiescing to racism? What’s to be done since, simultaneously, all persons and all nations have the sacred right to preserve their differences and identities, in the name of their own future and their own past?

Our world was shaped within an extraordinary variety of cultures and races, that could only develop to their ultimate and singular perfection through a necessary segregation. The confrontations that flow (and have always flowed) from this, are not racist, nor even racial. They are simply part of the permanent flow of opposing forces that shape the history of the world. The weak fade and disappear, the strong multiply and triumph.

For example, since the time of the Crusades and the great land and sea discoveries, and up to the colonial period and its last-ditch battles, Western expansionism responded to diverse motivations — ethical, political, or economic — but racism had no part and played no role in it, except perhaps in the soul of evil people. The relative strength of forces was in our favor, that’s all. That these were applied most often at the expense of other races — though some were thereby saved from their state of mortal torpor — was merely a consequence of our appetite for conquest and was not driven by or a cover for ideology. Now that the relationship between the forces has been diametrically reversed, and our ancient West — tragically now in a minority status on this earth — retreats behind its dismantled fortifications while it already loses the battles on its own soil, it begins to behold, in astonishment, the dull roar of the huge tide that threatens to engulf it. One must remember the saying on ancient solar calendars ‘’It is later than you think...’’ The above reference did not come from my pen. It was written by Thierry Maulnier, in connection with Camp of the Saints, as it happens. Forgive me for citing yet another, by Professor Jeffrey Hart of Dartmouth, a literary historian and a famous American columnist “Raspail is not writing about race, he is writing about civilization...”

from:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/camp_of_the_saints_bookreview_taylor_sj.htm

Yeah, there is that.

I do find it hard to cap on the EUnix for their idiotic immigration policies because of our own.

That’s one of the primary reasons I get so hot on the issue. I hate anything that slows me down in ragging on the EUpers.

Oh, yeah, and the whole National Sovereignty thing. I am, pretty much, in favor of America being American, and all that. I mean, what’s the point in being a member of the best thing going if we gotta give it all away? Where’s the fun in that?

If they (the immigrants) want to be in a bigger, better, richer, cooler and much much more interesting place, then they should stop fiddle farting around and build one for themselves the way they like it.

This one’s ours.

Absolutely right. The survival of Western Civilization is threatened. Western culture has never been perfect, it spawned Nazism and Communism. However, on balance, Western Civilization had brought modernity to the rest of the world. Its values of individual rights, its rule of law and its economic system have benefited all. Other cultures such as those in South and East Asia have taken much of the good of Western culture and blended it with their own, resulting in new progress economically and otherwise.
On the other hand the Muslim World and Sub-Saharan Africa have fallen even farther behind the West and East in progress. Latin America is a mixed result.

Protecting our borders is not just a security from terror, or drug smugglers. Protecting our borders protects our culture. Mexico is still a virtual basket case politically and economically largely because of its enduring culture of corruption. We don’t need that kind of culture transferred to America. If we take in immigrants (from Mexico), we need time to turn them into Americans. That is not happening fast enough. There are too many immigrants here illegally.
Europe has a greater problem, since many of their immigrants are Muslim. Muslims don’t assimilate as well. With declining birth rates in Europe, I wonder if there will be a France, Germany, Italy or Britain as we know it in a hundred years?

Borders, language and culture. Europe is slowly and deliberately destroying each one. What society do these architects expect to construct, what values will it have and how will this new society relate to the US?

The problem with us Europeans is that we simply do not need and want those senseless borders anymore. Those boarders were the reason for many senseless wars and lots of nationalistic cretinism. Since we have a more mature society than in the past we were able to overcome all this childish BS. Being a citizen of a EU member, I enjoy all the good things of a united Europe, e.g. shopping with the same currency in Paris, Rome or Amsterdam, traveling freely through the Schengen states without a passport (a valid ID is enough) or a boarder control, last but not least I may settle and work in each EU member state - and even vote for the mayor and city council there (as a foreigner!).

Like most other "young" Europeans (being 39 is not really young anymore) I am able to speak more than just one language (Native German, fluent French, Latin and a littlebit English). Even Americans benefit from our new European ability to understand each other. For a German like me speaking English is also the precondition to communicate here in FR with you Americans i.e.. As a result of our bloddy history we Europeans understood the necessity to talk with each other. Therefore it is a basic requirement for obtaining a CSE (the lowest school leaving certificate) to speak at least one foreign language. Most kids are learning two or more other European languages anyway in the meantime. To say that (political) Europe is destroying language therefore is absolutely ridicoulos. The opposite is the case.

Personally I think it is a staircase wit that Americans dare to speak about the self-destruction of European culture. America is the origin of such "culture" like gangsta rap or the biggest porn industry on this planet. Large parts of your society are primitive and godless. Far away from being cultural. You have all the same problems with young social underdogs like we Europeans have. The thing is that our young m*slims are somehow exactly the same dumb idiots as your young bl*ck gangsta rappers (political incorrect - But I am talking about the stereotypes not about individuals). Riots in our Paris and in your L.A (1992). Where is the cultural difference?

We Europeans are no longer bitter enemies, but we are working together for a better Europe. A Europe that knows that we can only meet the challenges of a growing world together. This is was contemporary Europe is about. Something many Americans like you obviously do not understand. A "new" Europe that is able to develop to something better is a much more viable partner to you Americans, while insisting on the "old" Europe with its many disputes is something that has to be forgotten soon. Come and get it.

P.S.

I do not have any problems to substitute the negative population development in Europe through a guided immigration of able people from Africa or Asia. If the immigrants are decent, intelligent and hard working people - why not? Why should we care about the color of their skin as long as they pay their taxes and respect our laws? Nazism is over.

Borders may be senseless, but is nationhood senseless?

Nazism was killed by the collective revulsion of, in part, its pursuit of racial purity. However, what will be the result when, for example, in a century from now the native population of France will not be ‘French’ because the birth rate of the people they are allowing to settle there from far away lands is far above replacement and the birth rate of the ‘indigenous’ peoples, the ‘native’ French, is less than replacement?

After all, in a different venue, we will bend over backwards and spare no effort to protect the Indigenous Peoples of the Third World, yet are busy pursuing policies that guarantee that some nations will cease to exist as we know them today.

In mentioning language, I never said or even implied it was being destroyed. The reason it is important is the cultural and national aspects. After all, the French are so careful about their language, they have a government department dedicated to keeping English words from creeping in. Germans may speak French, may live in France and may prefer French wine, but how many Germans want to actually be be French or have their children grow up French instead of German? Not many that I know.

The cultural and social difference between our LA riots and that of the “youth” in France or Belgium are very important. The first difference is we are not trying to hide who rioted in LA. The European government and media just cannot bring themselves to say who exactly these “youth” are, but we know them to be the children of Muslim immigrants. More important, I don’t have the slightest worry that the person who rioted in LA wants to take over my country, and impose Three Questions on me: convert, submit or die.

Please be careful about assuming what Americans know or don’t know, or even what they obviously don’t understand. I am an active investor in several European markets and have had business connections in Europe for over 30 years.

Borders may be senseless, but is nationhood senseless?

Nationhood is of course not senseless. Nevertheless there are for sure more important things than nationhood. As a German I might be in a special situation. The political denazification that was (and still is) especially driven by the US for understandable reasons had the side effect that the national pride of us Germans was and still is systematically destroyed. Therefore many of my compatriots are more willing than others to give up the old structures to change it into something better. We have no reason to hold on to something we want to leave behind. The Germany after the 3rd Reich was never carried by emotions. We had some nice moments but they are not enough to create national pride like in the US i.e.. Even the reunification was something quite unemotional for most Germans. I am from southern Germany and someone from Switzerland or from the Alsace i.e. is ethnically much closer to me than someone from Berlin. Now Germany is still the most important nation in Europe (the French, the Italians and the Brits will see that different ;-)) because of its economic potential and its number if inhabitants. And... ...you have it as a nation that is no "nation" in the classical sense anymore. Beside of this special German trend you have a broad political class of informed and leading Europeans from other countries who are simply convinced about a more united and integrated Europe. Those who are fiercely against it usually are those who lack information and who demand the protection of acquired (socialist) possessions. The thing is that a "new" Europe is the fundamental chance to overcome dumb national socialism. Within the old frames this will be impossible. We west-Germans i.e. have to pay 45 cent of every Euro that is spent in eastern Germany because of dumb nationalism (we do not stand behind anyway - that was Kohl's crazy idea) and dumb socialism.

However, what will be the result when, for example, in a century from now the native population of France will not be ‘French’ because the birth rate of the people they are allowing to settle there from far away lands is far above replacement and the birth rate of the ‘indigenous’ peoples, the ‘native’ French, is less than replacement?

The French made many fundamental faults and they have a severe problem with their north Africans. Nevertheless islam is the religion of (here in Germany) a 3.7 % underdog minority. In France we talk about 6 to 8 % to my knowledge. Muslims are the people on the bottom of our society. They lack the education, organization and intelligence to be a real danger. You should understand that those muzzies clean our cars and cook our doener kebab but will not take over our government. Most came to Europe for economic or colonial reasons. Therefore they have neither the interest nor the brains to saw off the limb they are sitting on.

Furthermore we Germans found out that i.e. the women with Turkish origin do not multiply more that their "German" sisters if they are out of the 2nd or 3rd Generation. Those women also discovered the wonders of birth control for their personal reasons. Since we do not have any notable Muslim immigration since the mid 80ties the proportion of Muslims in the German society is quite stable.

We have indeed -just like the French- a major problem with punctual muslim ghettos. A problem we have to do (and are doing already) something against. Nevertheless this has nothing to do with some future immigration. The thing is that we want no social underdogs anymore but educated and skilled people without any religious or political extremisms to immigrate into Europe. This is what we are looking for.

I am well aware that our society will change because of that. Nevertheless this is not different in the US. In a few years you have Spanish as a 2nd language in large parts of the (southern) states.

Germans may speak French, may live in France and may prefer French wine, but how many Germans want to actually be be French or have their children grow up French instead of German? Not many that I know.

Quite a few. My uncle i.e. married a French wife, is living near Paris and has 4 well educated kids. One of his daughters received a post graduate scholarship for making her doctor in Canada recently. Since France provides much better childcare and better possibilities for females to work and being mother at the same time especially many young German girls are heading for France. Furthermore in the boarder region we have some immigration to France because the prices for land are much cheaper there than in Germany.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.