Four letters sent to the Enfield Gazette (and, if I recall aright, all published), on the subject of immigration and refugees.

 

 

2 March 2002

To the Editor,

Enfield Gazette:

Dear Editor,

I generally have a great deal of sympathy with the issues raised by Mr Prince and the Enfield Pensioners Action Group. But I felt their letter (Gazette, 28 February) on the fire at the Yarls Wood detention centre missed the target.

Rather than presuming guilt for arson, they might inquire, as the Fire Brigades Union have done, why no sprinklers were fitted, and why the private company that runs the centre prevented fire-fighters from entering the burning premises for a whole hour, thus enormously increasing the damage and risk to life.

But they should also note that eleven million pounds – though a lot of money to pensioners like myself – is a tiny sum compared to the costs of the present war in Afghanistan and of the threatened war on Iraq to which Blair will doubtless slavishly commit British troops. It is these military adventures that mean there is not enough money left for schools, hospitals and pensions.

And of course every war increases the number of refugees, while lining the pockets of the arms manufacturers. They, and not asylum seekers, should be seen as the enemies of pensioners and working people.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Birchall

Edmonton Socialist Alliance

 

 

16 May 2002

To the Editor,

Enfield Gazette:

Dear Editor,

Paul Harvey (Gazette, 16 May) dismisses the view that immigrants play a valuable economic rôle as ‘balderdash’ and ‘nonsense’. But facts are facts, and do not go away if you shout abuse at them.

A recent parliamentary answer stated that ‘the foreign-born population (immigrants themselves, not including descendants) accounted for around 10% of UK GDP in 2001’. (Guardian, 10 May). Since it is fairly obvious that immigrants thus defined do not enjoy ten per cent of the nation’s wealth, it is clear to anyone who can do arithmetic that we are all better off for the presence of immigrants.

It is not ‘over-population’ that causes problems with schools, jobs, homes, hospitals, etc., but the government’s failure to spend adequately on public services rather than on arms so that Britain can assist George Bush’s plans for world domination.

Mr Harvey is right to be concerned about the ‘well-being of his children in later years’. But overall, his generation are turning out fewer and fewer children. A rapidly declining birth-rate means an ageing population. If we close the frontiers there will not be enough people working to pay Mr Harvey’s pension. Again it is simple arithmetic.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Birchall

Enfield Socialist Alliance

 

 

14 June 2002

To the Editor,

Enfield Gazette:

Dear Editor,

Simon Ladd (Gazette, June 13) asks for ‘rational, informed debate’ on immigration. But he evades the central question, the rapidly declining birth-rate in this country. Since, happily, people are also living longer, we shall have ever more pensioners to be paid by ever fewer workers.

If, as Mr Ladd wishes, immigration is tightly restricted, some other solution will have to be found, for example:

large increases in pension contributions;

raising the retirement age to seventy;

large increases in family benefits (paid for by higher taxes) to encourage more births;

compulsory euthanasia for the  over-75s.

Mr Ladd is, of course, entitled to advocate any of these. But will he please be straight with us and tell us what policy he does support?

Yours sincerely,

Ian Birchall

Enfield Socialist Alliance

 

 

26 June 2002

To the Editor,

Enfield Gazette:

Dear Editor,

Your anonymous correspondent  (Gazette, June 20) is very right to be angry, but I fear her anger is misdirected. There is an appalling housing crisis in London. National and local government have abandoned the task of building affordable housing for working people in order to cut taxes for the  better-off. They prefer to spend money on foreign wars (which, incidentally, increase the number of refugees). Private builders find more profit in building for the higher income groups. With the widening gap between rich and poor, house prices rise out of the reach of ordinary people.

This is the fault of a free market system which doesn’t work and a government which has abandoned its core supporters. It cannot in anyway be blamed on asylum seekers. The rich who run the world have no loyalty to England or any other country; they shift their money where profits are highest. And nothing delights them more than for their victims to start fighting among themselves.

As for Simon Ladd, his plan to raise the birth-rate by banning abortion has little chance of success. Few women choose abortion lightly. The enforced birth of large numbers of children, whose mothers had strong economic or emotional grounds for not wanting them, would undoubtedly produce many social ill-effects.

History shows us that when abortion was illegal it was still widely practised; it was just more dangerous, and, of course, the NHS had to deal with the casualties. Nowadays, moreover, women seeking an abortion would simply jump on a train to France.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Birchall

Enfield Socialist Alliance