All we are advocating for is a points based system for immigration. To help reduce it and to stop the current open door policy towards the EU.
Its not all you're advocating though is it. You're using it to be deliberately divisive.
Vote Leave’s snake oil
Brexiteers’ Commonwealth immigration claims are disingenuous
The approach adopted by the Vote Leave campaign to woo voters of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent is politics of the worst kind.
Vote Leave’s argument – popularised by Priti Patel – is that migrants from the European Union are what made restrictions on immigration from outside the EU so stringent and, therefore, leaving means reducing EU immigration into the United Kingdom. This, in turn, will open up space for more non-EU immigration. The former is untrue – it was the Tories, including Patel and not the EU, that meant Commonwealth migrants would need high levels of minimum savings in the bank before entering the UK. At best this is simplistic, at worst it is a disingenuous and desperate. Both are designed to manipulate one section of our community to vote for a ‘Leave’ campaign that is fast losing credibility with the British public.
The forces behind Brexit are rarely seen on ‘migrants welcome’ marches. Normally they are pushing the government right, not left. It is therefore incredible for some in the BAME community to suggest that if Britain were to leave the EU those that have lobbied hard for Brexit, would then be willing to allow more immigration to the UK from south Asia. It is hard to imagine Boris Johnson patiently waiting at Heathrow airport with open arms to welcome the new wave of immigrants from Karachi, Dhaka, Mumbai or New Delhi.
Like it or not, immigration from non-EU countries is still seen to be as big a problem as immigration from EU countries. The Conservatives’ stated target for net immigration at the last general election was below 100,000. Last year non-EU immigration alone stood at 188,000 net.
If a Brexit vote is successful the direction of travel will be to take a harder line on EU and non-EU immigration, not to relax controls.
But just as it is a fallacy to suggest that leaving the EU would result in a significant reduction in immigration from the EU, it will result in tougher still non-EU rules. Both Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU but agree free movement of people from it in return for access to the single market. It is likely – considering staying in the single market is the expressed will of many Vote Leave leaders – that the UK would have to do likewise in the event the country voted to leave the EU.
My parents came to this country in the early 1970s to escape the tyranny of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. They came in search of a better life. They perceived the UK to be a tolerant and respectful country that would give them and their children the opportunity to reach their potential. They were not disappointed. As a country we should be proud that people see the UK as a place where their dreams can be fulfilled if they are willing to contribute positively. The vast majority of EU immigrants do contribute and over the last decade they brought £20bn more to the UK economy than they received in benefits.
Avoid the snake oil salespeople in Vote Leave. There are substantive reasons to choose ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave’, but none are these aforementioned. While it is not perfect, the EU can create those conditions for growth, increase opportunity and better jobs whereas, according to most expert opinion, Brexit will certainly do the opposite.
