LABOUR’S PLAN TO OPEN DOORS TO BRITAIN EVEN WIDER
Corbyn adviser’s proposal to let in tens of thousands of unskilled migrants is leaked
LABOUR has drawn up secret plans to throw open Britain’s doors to thousands of unskilled migrants after Brexit.
An internal policy document leaked to the Daily Mail reveals the party is considering introducing a visa for migrants seeking ‘low-skilled,
unskilled or seasonal work’.
The document, drawn up this month by Jeremy Corbyn’s domestic policy adviser, Lachlan Stuart, also proposes axing rules which limit foreign spouses living here unless they can show they will not be a ‘burden’ on the taxpayer.
Labour’s manifesto made no mention of a plan to allow in more unskilled migrants. Mr Corbyn has repeatedly refused to say whether he thinks immigration levels are too high. It came on a day of chaos for Labour in which:
Mr Corbyn suffered another ‘ car- crash’ interview on the BBC’s Woman’s Hour show in which he was unable to say how much his flagship childcare policy would cost;
The Labour leader was forced to apologise after his supporters bombarded presenter Emma
Barnett with vile anti-Semitic abuse, on the day he was launching the party’s policy to tackle anti-Semitism;
Mr Corbyn was branded a ‘huge disappointment’ by users of the Mumsnet website after he cut short an election chat with mothers;
labour’s shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry faced mockery after suggesting British farmers could not increase exports to australia after Brexit because the food ‘would go off’.
labour’s manifesto promises ‘fair rules and reasonable management’ of immigration, but gives few details on the type of regime it would operate after Brexit.
Mr Corbyn, who has always opposed a cap on migration, said on Monday that immigration would ‘probably’ come down under labour, but added: ‘Don’t hold me to that.’
The leaked policy document suggests labour’s plans could add tens of thousands every year to net migration, and will cause alarm in working-class labour constituencies which voted for Brexit.
The document says labour would also relax rules on handling asylum claims if it wins power.
The party last night confirmed the document was genuine but insisted it was only one of several ‘discussion documents’ and was not yet official policy.
But the document appears to set out a
‘Those with no skills at all’
detailed blueprint that labour will pursue if Mr Corbyn wins power next week.
It reveals that labour would open ‘tier 3’ of the immigration system to new applicants for the first time. This route into Britain, which was one of the five original tiers created by labour in 2008, was never used because of the huge influx of migrants from Eastern Europe.
Tier 1 visas are for entrepreneurs and business investors, tier 2 for skilled migrants sponsored by UK businesses, tier 4 is student visas and tier 5 offers temporary visas for young people aged 18 to 30. all four are operating.
In March 2013, David Cameron announced tier 3 would be ‘shut down completely’ in a speech in which he questioned why it was even created.
‘There was even, extraordinarily, a tier specifically created for those with no skills at all. Now why would you want to create such a tier?’ he said.
But in labour’s policy document, a senior official writes: ‘We envisage a requirement to make continued use of the cur- rent five- tiered tiered visa system, including the currently unused tier applicable to those seeking low- skilled, unskilled or seasonal work.’
The document also proposes scrapping the means test which limits some family migration. anyone wanting to bring in a spouse or partner from non-EU countries has to meet a before-tax income requirement of £18,600. Introduced by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary, it was designed to stop wives or husbands becoming a ‘burden on the State’.
The Tories have pledged to increase the minimum amount, but scrapping it entirely could – according to official figures – add between 14,000 and 18,000 a year to migrant numbers. The basis of Mr Corbyn’s post-Brexit immigration policy is a green card system. anyone who successfully applied would have permanent residency rights.
all EU citizens living here would be granted a card and applications would be open to anyone with ‘family connections, a job offer, relevant skills for employment and refugee or asylum status’. Mr Corbyn’s advisers admit the proposal would require five entirely new IT systems.
On asylum, the document says: ‘We would overhaul our discredited current system in order to uphold our obligations to those fleeing war and persecution. Immigration is driven more by economic requirements of both migrant and host far more than it is regulated by systems of permit control. The numbers might go up or down but not as a consequence of these changes. We are not setting false, misleading, divisive targets.’
a labour spokesman said: ‘after Britain leaves the EU, free movement of labour will come to an end. labour will introduce fair rules and managed migration, based on the needs of our economy.
‘a number of discussion papers have been produced. This is part of one such document. It is not a statement of labour policy, which is set out in our manifesto.’
THE more you tell teenagers about sex, the more sex they will have. And the more unwanted pregnancies will result.
You might have thought that was obvious. But, for decades, the liberal establishment has thought the exact opposite. Tell teenagers about the perils of unprotected sex, and they’ll have less of it — or so their ill-judged thinking has gone.
Well, now an academic study has shown quite how misguided those progressive thoughts were.
David Paton, of the Nottingham University Business School, and Liam Wright, of the University of Sheffield, have discovered that teenage pregnancies have actually declined in those areas where councils have cut their budgets for sex education programmes aggressively.
In the Journal of Health Economics, the two academics came to the conclusion that ‘spending on projects relating to teenage pregnancy may be counterproductive’.
In other words, where the Government has tried to educate teenagers about sex in an attempt to discourage it, the exact opposite has been achieved.
The study examined the effect of dramatic budget cutbacks after the 2008 financial crash by local authorities which had previously been spending millions a year on sex prevention measures such as making the morning-after pill available, hiring teenage pregnancy co-ordinators, and holding sexual health clinics and sex and relationship education classes in schools.
Over the five years between 2009 and 2014, pregnancy rates fell by 42.6 per cent to their lowest levels since 1969.
What is so striking is that this latest study proves exactly what those of us who have specialised in this area have been saying for years.
Specifically, back in 2004, a report by the Family Education Trust — an independent think-tank which studies the effect of family breakdown — revealed that, in areas with the most teenage pregnancy projects, teenage pregnancies were rising.
Specifically, the report — entitled Sex Education Or Indoctrination? — said that the explicit sex education leaflets and free condoms provided to under-age girls by government schemes had simply encouraged them to have sex. It claimed there was a direct link between giving young people sex education of this nature and the boost to the number of babies born.
Today, once more, there is clear evidence of a direct correlation between increased sex education and teenagers having more sex. Yet still, the official approach is to insist that sex education — at younger and younger ages — is the only answer to the crisis.
Only this year, Royal Assent was given to the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which makes it a requirement for all secondary schools in England to teach sex education, and for primary schools to tackle ‘relationships’ in the curriculum.
And while, for some pupils, these kinds of lessons may be helpful at an appropriate age, there is immense pressure from today’s progressive sex education industry to continually lower that age.
A few years ago, an investigation by the Christian Institute charity found that primary schools condoned sex education lessons using graphic images in the form of comicstyle books with cartoon explanations of masturbation and orgasm, and crayoned drawings to explain the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Meanwhile, delegates to the National Union of Teachers conference in Cardiff last month called for toddlers to be taught about LGBT issues in nursery schools.
Apart from grotesquely robbing children of their innocence, this approach to sex education even for older children flies in the face of sanity.
And if you start teaching children about sex at a younger and younger age, the inevitable consequence will be that they go out and try it at a younger and younger age.
This is because little of this sex education is accompanied by moral strictures or any message of abstinence or restraint. So all of these various courses end up encouraging teenagers not only to think about sex, but also to think about it as something attractive.
Yes, for more advanced teenagers who are going to have sex anyway, there is a chance the free contraception handed out by these programmes may reduce pregnancies.
But, for those children who are reluctant or shy about sex, these classes will only exert a pressure to have sex, where previously there was none. And then, when sexual health clinics start handing out condoms with a no-questionsasked policy, everything becomes so much easier.
Sex is suddenly high on the agenda for teenagers who would otherwise have been extremely cautious about it. All of a sudden, underage sex becomes a social norm.
And this brings us to a much darker side of the normalisation of teenage sex, and one that should trouble us all.
As the Family Education Trust revealed earlier this year, some of the girls used for sex by Asian gangs in the abuse scandals in Rochdale and Oxford had visited teenage sex-advice clinics.
At the age of only 13 or 14, they were visiting sexual health professionals, not to seek advice about how to avoid underage sex, but in order to get contraceptives, which they were given readily.
As Norman Wells, the director of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘The evidence from recent serious case reviews clearly demonstrates that fundamental flaws in professional attitudes towards underage sexual activity have directly contributed to exploitation and abuse.’
The professionals, rather than investigating these horrors, or advising against underage sex, were completely accepting of the fact that these girls were having underage sex. The taboo wasn’t underage sex; the taboo was being judgmental. And so this appalling scandal was allowed to rage on unchecked.
For decades, we have failed young teenagers by making sex acceptable and facilitating it. This failed philosophy in curtailing teenage pregnancy began in the Seventies. It coincided with the normalisation of sex outside marriage, combined with the pill and a general attitude that children should be told about the joys of sex, rather than just say no and wait.
A protective attitude to children was considered stifling and old-fashioned. The assumption was that, the more they know, the better it would be for them.
And the result? A huge rise in teenage pregnancies. In 1999, Britain had the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe, a rate boosted by the easy access to welfare for teenage mothers. The figures coincided with a massive rise in family breakdown, too. Only in recent years have these figures started to subside.
To be fair, the teenage pregnancy initiatives were well-meant — but they have gone badly wrong, needlessly exposing young girls to harm.
In some schools, they’ve tried to supply better material, with suggestions to pupils that it would be better to abstain or wait. But that approach is still far from being the norm. In government, they are still clinging to the idea that giving children knowledge about sex is the answer.
They are pursuing the line that the more we tell children about sex, the safer they’ll be. We have a mountain of evidence that the reverse is the case — particularly for the vulnerable, such as the young girls abused in Rochdale.
This latest finding, backed up by previous studies, should be a wake-up call to all those who fail to protect our young people by clinging to outdated and damaging ideas.