Dr Andrew Emerson
1:35 PM on 18/05/2017
Is every one of the 120 agricultural workers at the old South Downs Holiday Village in the country legally? Has anyone bothered to check their documents? If we assume, for the sake of argument, that they are all in the country legally and working legally, then it is not their fault that they are keeping the level of agricultural workers’ wages low by working for wages too low for English workers to live on. It is the fault of the system and the politicians of the Establishment parties, Lib-Lab-Con, who defend that indefensible system. The fact remains that, were it not for immigrants from the third world and Eastern Europe, many of whom do not work, the level of remuneration for jobs such as picking crops would inevitably be much higher than it is currently. The crops would not be allowed to rot in the field. The level of pay for picking them would rise to the point at which it became economically attractive for our people to do the work themselves.
Under the pernicious foreign ‘migrant labour’ system the profits are privatized and accrue to the employers and their stooges, the Establishment politicians of Lib-Lab-Con; whereas the costs are socialized, ie, borne by everyone who pays income tax, council tax, etc.
If the Observer’s report is correct, then it would appear that the 120 ‘workers’ currently residing on the site have no legal right to be there. Unless they are on holiday, which seems highly improbable.
If CDC are now finally doing their job and enforcing planning law, which they are quick enough to do in the case of English home-owners who build an unauthorized extension on their property incidentally, perhaps it has something to do with the approaching general election. The former Remainer Theresa May has wrapped herself in the Brexit issue and is now pretending to be a patriot, in the manner of Margaret Thatcher just before the 1979 general election.
The Conservatives can no more be trusted to reduce immigration than Labour or the Liberal Democrats. Their talking in terms of the meaningless notion of ‘net migration’ proves their insincerity. As a hypothetical example: if 800,000 foreigners were to enter the country in a single year, with a view to pillaging our welfare state and/or engaging in acquisitive crime and in that same year 750,000 British citizens, the great majority of whom are English, leave the country in despair, then Mrs May’s target of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands would have been achieved.
May’s use of the term net migration is an insult to the English amounting to hate speech because it implies that the nationality and race of the occupants of England is unimportant and that any foreigner has as much of a right to be here as an Englishman. It is also an insult to the people whose forefathers made the Industrial Revolution to imply that our country cannot cope without an annual influx of skilled foreign immigrants.
We can cope very well without such immigration.
Read more at: http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/bracklesham-holiday-park-workers-given-28-days-to-leave-1-7964027#comments-area