Spain, Australia, U.K. reverse on Immigration: Why not America?
Print Friendly and PDF
With a spasm of job-destroying economic contraction being felt around the world, governments formerly favorable to large-scale immigration are reversing course.

In Spain, as I noted last month in Spanish Socialists see Light: Close Immigration Door, a particularly early down-turn prompted an early response — all the more notable for being the dropping of a cherished policy:

When the Socialist Government of Spain came to power in 2004, it immediately amnestied 700,000 illegal immigrants. These were enabled consequently to migrate legally all over the European Union. Spain’s EU partners were not amused.

Things have changed completely. The Spanish Government, faced with a massive construction bust, is effectively banning fresh immigration. This follows the launching of a plan earlier this year to pay immigrants to return home.

Now the Spanish have taken further concrete measures:

MADRID, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Rubbish collectors, waiters and other low-skilled workers will no longer be given working visas to come to Spain as it battles fast-rising unemployment, the government said on Thursday.

Occupations like electricians, bricklayers, bus drivers and gardeners have also fallen off the list of jobs for which non-EU citizens can apply for a visa, the Labour Ministry said.

Spain stops work visas for low-skilled immigrants

In Australia, the leftish Labor Government, which had been engineering a large increase in allegedly skilled immigration, has apparently reversed itself too:

CANBERRA - Australia said on Friday it will re-think a large boost to immigration as the global financial crisis buffets the economy and places a brake against years of strong growth.

With economic expansion tipped by the IMF to almost halve to just above two per cent, centre-left Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said his government would re-assess the need for a planned 19.8 per cent immigration increase, or 31,000 extra migrant places


the government planned to accept 190,300 new migrants before July next year, including 56,500 places for family members sponsored by people already in Australia and 133,500 places for those with highly skilled newcomers.

Aust rethinks immigration boost as global financial crisis buffets economy By Rob Taylor of Reuters Business Spectator 10 October 2008

(Since Australia has only 21.3 Mm people, this is the equivalent of the US bringing in 2.73 Mm immigrants!)

...centre-left Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said…"As with all previous governments, and mine's the same, whenever we set immigration targets we will adjust them according to the economic circumstances of the day,"

Even in the United Kingdom, where nation-destroying immigration was as a practical matter the central domestic policy theme of the Blair Labour Government, the tide may be turning:

HINT OF U-TURN OVER MIGRANTS By Macer Hall Political Editor Daily Express Monday October 6, 2008

A MAJOR U-turn in immigration policy looked likely last night.

Labour’s new immigration minister yesterday admitted that the influx of newcomers into Britain may have to be capped.

In an apparent recognition of the failure of the Government’s open-doors border policy, newly-promoted minister Phil Woolas said limiting population growth was ”common sense”

There is no reason to suppose that the economic downturn in America will be less severe than in these countries. Why is it that neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidates care enough about American working families to raise the idea of adjusting immigration rates because of the new economic circumstances? (As for the Democrats, I subscribe to the Pinkerton theory:

the Democrats are emerging as the new party of the rich, the party of Wall Street…For years now, the most affluent precincts in the country–mostly on the two coasts–have been solidly Democratic.)

The general fact that US immigration generally enriches the wealthy at the expense of everyone else is no doubt part of the reason — but that is also true in these three countries. A deeper reason: the taboo on anything indirectly raising what Peter Brimelow has called the National Question. Imagine the MSM reception of an American politician using UK Minister Woolas’ analysis:

Mr Woolas said immigration policy should ”provide confidence to the indigenous population that migration is under control…we have got to provide reassurance to communities that the numbers coming in are not bad for us…Community cohesion is crucial. After the economy, it’s probably the biggest concern facing the population.”

In the Land of the Free what national elected political figure would be Brave enough to say that?

Why not?

Print Friendly and PDF