Irwin Stelzer's answer to the immigration dilema:
'The solution to all these problems lies in a four-phase policy. First, limit those allowed in to those most likely to enrich the nation. Secondly, allocate the available places to those who will be the largest net contributors to British economic life. Thirdly, require the beneficiaries of immigration to share their gains with those who bear the costs. Fourthly, bar immigration from countries noted for producing terrorists.'
But wouldn't that include the UK? The 7/7 bombers were British citizens after all. Is Stelzer suggesting baring British imigrants from other countries too?
5 comments:
There was a fascinating piece on Newsnight the other night on the rising costs of translation services in the UK. The figure they came up with - £100m - is probably an underestimate, and over the whole country doesn't sound that much to me in the greater scheme of things, but the issues that do concern me are the trends (this spending seems to be increasing exponentially) and - as the program heroically highlighted - the fact that this spend is in many cases *increasing* ghettoism and further marginalising and separating immigrant communities.
I strongly recommend clicking on the link to watch the report, it was a real good 'un. The best bits are the Polish woman (how *can* a Polish engineer live in the UK for 3 years and not speak English??) who confesses that without translation services she would have had more incentive to learn English, the Bangladeshi woman who links lack of language opportunity and female oppression, and the Turkish woman who receives one-to-one 'stop smoking' sessions in Turkish, who defended this (through her interpreter) as being "my right".
Cost in translation
By Mark Easton
BBC home editor
The cost of translating and interpreting for UK residents who don't speak English is rising sharply. Our research has identified expenditure of at least £100m in the past year, but the true figure is likely to be much more. Local councils spend at least £25m; the police £21m; the courts system spends more than £10m without accounting for the cost of legal aid; and the NHS - a conservative estimate is £55m.
On hearing of the BBC research, Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has asked for a review of language services across government. A spokesman said: "We do recognise that there is an issue here which we need to look at."
Even though government departments refer to an obligation to translate, any legal imperative is far from clear. The Race Relations Act simply says that all parts of the community should have access to services. The Human Rights Act only requires translation if someone is arrested or charged with a criminal offence.
But many public bodies assume they must translate. In Peterborough, for instance, our research has identified more than £1m of public money is now spent on interpreting and translation for the city's growing immigrant population. A Home Office funded community centre has translated documents and services into 76 languages, with Polish and Portuguese among the most commonly requested. Leonie McCarthy, the project manager at Peterborough's New Link centre, says the council sees it as its duty to translate into any dialect or language for which there is a demand.
"What we say to people is if they need it in their language we will make sure they have it because we believe that everybody should have equal access to knowledge of the services. "If somebody needs information and they have a right to that information we will make sure we get it translated."
At the centre we met Agneska, a Polish civil engineer who has lived in Britain for three years but does not speak English. Now pregnant and unemployed, she was asking for advice on how to claim Jobseekers Allowance from an interpreter. Asked if the absence of such translation would have encouraged her to attend English classes, Agneska replied: "Absolutely, yes."
In Tower Hamlets in the East End of London, Bangladeshi human rights lawyer Zia Haider Rahman says the provision of translation and interpretation is damaging his community. It is a corner of England where, he says, English is a foreign language. Shops, restaurants and the doctors surgery all cater for a population which speaks Bengali or Sylheti. His community, he says, is put off learning English because the authorities translate everything for them.
"They are doing harm because they are reinforcing the language barrier which separates this community from the rest of Britain. They are de-incentivising Bangladeshis from learning English". Zia introduced us to a woman who is too frightened to speak openly. She has lived in Tower Hamlets for 22 years but doesn't speak a word of English. She told me that however well-meaning, all the language support had ruined her life.
"When you are trying to help us, you are actually harming us", she says. "All we have to do is say hello and they are here with their interpreters. We just sit here doing nothing and we don't need to speak in English at all." The woman, in her early 40s, says many other girls brought over from Bangladesh as wives are effectively enslaved by men who do not want them to integrate. "Women are not being allowed to learn English because if they go out the husband fears they will be corrupted, that she will gain courage and she will learn how to operate in this country. "There should be a law that requires these newcomers to learn English and that stops their families from preventing them learn English," she says.
...
Islington Primary Care Trust, for instance, provides stop smoking advice in Somali and Turkish - often one-to-one sessions through an interpreter. The justification is that those communities have higher levels of smoking than the wider population and translating helps reach that population. But there are no national guidelines as to when it is appropriate or required to provide interpretation or translation services.
A spokesman for the Department of Health told the BBC: "No legal advice has been taken. It is clear that there is an obligation to provide information that is clearly understood."
The cost of translation is rising fast. In the last five years the bill for the courts in England has trebled. West Midlands police translation costs have also trebled to nearly £2m. There are many unanswered questions. No-one knows how many millions we spend on translation. We do not know exactly what the legal requirement is. But perhaps most worrying of all, we do not know whether it does more harm than good.
A story highlighted by Andy and Dan at lunch today. An Oxford academic, David Coleman, is being hounded for his supposed 'racism' over immigration and its cost-benefit to the UK as a whole.
----------------
How forecasts by Migrationwatch stirred up a political hornets' nest
Telegraph
08/03/2007
David Coleman was targeted by the Oxford student campaign body, STAR, because of his association with Migrationwatch UK. He acts as an honorary adviser and sits on the organisation's council. Migrationwatch UK began life in 2002 with the expressed aim of making immigration an issue that politicians would talk about once again.
Chaired by Sir Andrew Green, a retired diplomat, it caused an immediate furore by making a startling prediction. It said there would be two million immigrants over the following 10 years and that 80 per cent of Britain's population increase up to 2020 would be as a result of immigration. The forecast was roundly criticised by the Home Office, Labour politicians and Left-leaning newspapers. Migrationwatch was accused of scaremongering, of massaging the figures and of having a secret racist agenda.
When the group published research questioning the Government's management of immigration it was the target of a "smear campaign" to undermine its work.
Yet more than four years on, nobody now doubts the facts that Migrationwatch have unearthed or highlighted, often from official statistics. There may be arguments over whether mass immigration is a good or a bad thing; but nobody any longer questions that it is happening. What Migrationwatch had spotted, and which the Government either failed to see or deliberately kept quiet about, was the rapidly accelerating trend that began when Labour came into office and took off at the beginning of this decade.
For more than 25 years after the passage of the 1971 Immigration Act, net immigration to the UK ran at about 50,000 a year. Primary immigration had effectively stopped and family reunion became the main driver of inward migration. But Labour, either through losing control of the borders or through a deliberate, if undebated, policy, allowed numbers to rise rapidly.
In 2000, immigrants exceeded people leaving the country by 183,000 and that did not include asylum seekers who at the time were at record levels. By 2004, net immigration was well above 200,000 and it has stayed around or just under this figure. These levels are far higher than anything seen before and will arguably have a profound effect on the shape and nature of our society. Migrationwatch has opened up the debate by providing the statistical basis for a proper discussion that some still seek to close down with mutterings about racism.
----------------
Academic hits back in migration row
By David Coleman
Professor of Demography
Oxford University
Telegraph
08/03/2007
This is a follow up to my Cost in translation post earlier in this thread.
Credit where credit's due - it's rare that I blog to praise rather than moan, especially where our current government is concerned. Of course it may turn out to be all talk, no action as with Blair on radical imams etc, but still, it's a good thing.
Councils told to axe translation help for migrants
Sunday Times
June 10, 2007
COUNCILS are to be ordered to stop putting money into translation services for immigrants and to encourage them to learn English instead.
A report to be unveiled this week by Ruth Kelly, the communities and local government secretary, will warn that foreigners who settle in Britain are relying too heavily on interpreters, hindering their integration into mainstream society.
An independent commission set up by the government to advise on how to bring communities together will describe failure to speak English as the single biggest barrier.
Experts estimate that local and central government spend about £500m a year translating written material and providing interpreters. The biggest spenders include Whitehall departments, town halls, courts and hospitals. Some councils are providing translations in as many as 15 languages.
A further 3,000 quangos and government-funded bodies such as housing associations purchase translation and interpretation services.
Kelly wants this to stop. Instead employers will be asked to pay for language lessons for workers who have a poor grasp of English. A college course lasting 18 weeks costs about £600.
Kelly has warned that in offering comprehensive translation services to help migrant groups with everything from housing and healthcare to finding work “there is a danger that we have failed to promote independence and inclusion in British society”.
The Commission on Integration and Cohesion is now expected to say that translation services should never be a “substitute” for learning English and that immigrants have a responsibility to speak the language.
Darra Singh, the chairman, is expected to say that people arriving here who fail to learn English risk isolation and separation and should be encouraged to learn the language as soon as they reach Britain, if not before.
His report will warn that if foreigners are not encouraged to take classes at an early stage the chance is quickly lost as they find ways of “getting by” through the use of interpreters, friends or family.
It will highlight immigrants who come to Britain to join their spouses as a particularly important group and suggest they receive English language lessons and tests before arriving.
The report is expected to praise efforts by some employers to provide English lessons to foreign workers and call for more such schemes.
It won't be all talk and this will happen - state services are in financial crisis and the Government is looking for peripheral services that can be cut. That's their main reason, the social cohesion stuff is a welcome byproduct (and useful as spin). The hard-up NHS has cut homoeopathy treatments for similiar reasons (a cut that I also welcome).
An answer to Sir John Waite, the judge who said that the UK’s treatment of asylum seekers falls “seriously below” the standards of a civilised society and that our treatment of them has “blemished” our international reputation.
It’s all too easy to get into Britain
The Sunday Times
March 30, 2008
Roshan Doug
People flock here because our system of visas and our social benefits are skewed in favour of those entering Britain
Post a Comment