Writing in The Australian, journalist Nick Cater commented upon the glaring failure of immigration policy in Britain. The article is behind a paywall, but the Daily Sceptic has kindly quoted the best bit: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/why-uk-proves-the-danger-of-failed-immigration-experiment/news-story/cc4feca53df0611295dc7676fe130833
The point made is that the UK government has lost control of immigration, unable and unwilling to control the borders, because of various agendas, but they are doubling down on social control of protests:
"The truth, however unpalatable, is that the vision of the anointed has turned out to be a horrible, socially destructive and probably irreversible mistake. Trust in the British Government's ability to control immigration has disappeared outside the London bubble. The British stiff upper lip is being tested every day in provincial towns and cities where wedding receptions are cancelled, business conferences relocated, and golf courses fenced off to make room for the archipelago of mini-Christmas Islands housing people with no cultural connection with Britain or its people."
And what warning is there for Australia? Much could be said here about how so-called legal immigration has produced an accommodation crisis, and so on, but the point made is that the High Court ruling last year has allowed (some) dangerous illegals to be released to the community. Agreed this is a problem, but at the end of the day it is still small numbers. The harm being done by mass immigration far exceeds the threat by these criminals who cannot be deported because of sacred human rights stuff.
"Australian journalist Nick Cater has written a diatribe about the failure of immigration policy in Britain in the Australian. It's an excoriating attack on the saga to date and especially the first few weeks of the new Labour Government. He also has a warning for Australia. The story is behind a paywall and is likely to go largely unnoticed in Britain, but here's an extract:
The eruption of ethnic tension in dozens of British towns and cities is a reminder of what happens when governments lose control of immigration.
Boats transporting illegal migrants land so frequently they no longer make the headlines. Since Keir Starmer became Prime Minister at the start of July, there have been 87 "uncontrolled landings", as the Home Office delicately calls them. That's another 5,000 asylum-seekers to be fed, housed and processed as guests of the U.K. Government on top of the 31,000 who arrived under the Conservatives last year, and the 96,000 who arrived in the three years before that.
The Labour Government's response to the crisis is to do precisely nothing. The last thing it wants to do is incur the wrath of the European Court of Human Rights, to which Britain remains beholden, nine years after the British people voted for Brexit.
The government won't confirm how many provincial hotels have been requisitioned, and editors are discouraged from publishing their names. Still, the BBC reported last year that 395 hotels had been requisitioned, housing 51,000 asylum-seekers at a cost of more than £6 million ($12 million) a day, or around $4.4 billion a year, a figure that appears to be a gross underestimate.
The political class may have lost control of the borders, but it has an iron grip on the narrative. To suggest there might be underlying causes to the recent civil disturbances is strictly taboo. Those who come close stand accused of justifying hate crime or may even face charges of being an actual hate criminal, the equivalent of being labelled an enemy of the people in Enver Hoxha's communist Albania.
It is a catch-all charge laid against anyone who deviates from the party line, which is that the multicultural, globalist project would work fine if these people would only shut up.
The alternative interpretation is that the riots are a manifestation of the pent-up frustration among many Britons who want a say in who comes to their country and how they come. The longer the British establishment keeps its ear turned and tries to suppress serious discussion, the more it will fester.
The truth, however unpalatable, is that the vision of the anointed has turned out to be a horrible, socially destructive and probably irreversible mistake. Trust in the British Government's ability to control immigration has disappeared outside the London bubble. The British stiff upper lip is being tested every day in provincial towns and cities where wedding receptions are cancelled, business conferences relocated, and golf courses fenced off to make room for the archipelago of mini-Christmas Islands housing people with no cultural connection with Britain or its people.
By comparison, immigration in Australia appears to be working like a dream, at least on paper. It has twice as many overseas-born residents per capita as Britain, the highest concentration in the OECD, excluding Luxembourg, which is different. Australia is the kind of country one goes to seek one's fortune, while Luxembourg, with its generous tax rules, is the kind of place you go to keep it.
Labor appeared to restore its support for sovereign borders in opposition but, as we now know, the malevolent growth of progressive ideology continued below the surface. Anthony Albanese's misguided belief that the Australian government has a duty of care to displaced people from a lawless terrorist enclave is entirely consistent with his long-held belief that the Howard government should have accepted the Tampa asylum-seekers.
It stems from the dangerous idea that Australia's commitment to universal human rights overrides its duty to protect the safety of its own citizens. It assumes that expenditure of compassion on a category of people in a faraway land should be a higher priority than the rights of its citizens, who merely want to know that new arrivals will keep the law and invest in the Australian dream.
No post-war prime minister has tested the limits of public acceptance of an active migration policy as much as this one nor tested the strength of the social fabric by dismissing legitimate grievances. The lesson from the disastrous diversity experiment in Britain is clear: stop it before it is too late."