Share |

Friday, 6 February 2015

Green Party Immigration Policy: Reckless and Destructive

Feeling tempted to vote Green? Then think again. Yesterday, the Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett sought to grab the headlines by announcing that the Greens wish to increase spending on social housing from £1.5 billion to £6 billion per annum by 2017, building an additional 500,000 rented ‘homes’ by this year. ‘Homes’? What form would these ‘homes’ take? Would they be the ugly, diminutive battery-style units that have shot up in our increasingly overpopulated land over the past couple of decades, or something else? Where would they be built? Who would occupy them? In fact, if we dig a little further, it is evident that this policy, given the Green approach to immigration, is both ill-founded and grossly inadequate, revealing the Green Party to be anything but environmental in its orientation. Its policies actually veer towards communism rather than towards environmentalism, and if implemented would result in a marked decrease in both environmental and living standards in the UK, in England in particular. 

If one looks at the party’s statements on migration (note its use of the term ‘migration’, rather than ‘immigration’) which were last updated in September 2014, it is clear that these proposed new ‘homes’ would in themselves not meet the demands of the many hundreds of thousands, if not upwards of a million, immigrants who would enter the country if the Greens got their way, for they believe in a world without borders. For most people in the UK – who have not arrived here recently, or who do not who view themselves as possessing a hyphenated identity linking them to some other country – the Green approach to immigration cannot be viewed as appealing in any way. In fact, it is nothing short of recklessly irresponsible, being to the clear detriment of our national environment, way of life, and, indeed, survival. Am I lapsing into hyperbole with respect to their approach to this issue? Judge for yourself by viewing these statements taken from the ‘Migration’ section of its website:

MG102 We are aware that, in the 21st century, there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase.

MG203 Richer regions [by which they mean ‘regions’ of the globe, i.e. nation-states or the EU, for example] do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.

MG300 We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.

MG420 We will resist all attempts to introduce a 'barrier round Europe' shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European Nationals.

There are many other statements in line with the above, which make it clear that other than limiting population influxes into Antarctica (scarcely a popular destination for humans, but favoured by emperor penguins) and national parks, the Greens are seemingly open to the idea of concreting over anywhere and everywhere in pursuit of their open-bordered dystopia. Their 500,000-home proposal would not even be adequate to meet the pent-up demand for social housing, for there are currently 1.8 million people on the waiting list. All of these homes, and more, would be needed for a nigh on limitless supply of immigrants, from countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, etc. As well as imposing massive strains upon the economy, public services, utilities, transport infrastructure and the environment, what would this do to an already intensely cleft and fractured ‘society’, lacking any cohering values and sense of identity? 

The Greens are utopian idealists who, if they were provided with the opportunity to actively influence policy, would bring about a deliberate and calculated massive decline in the living standards of people in this country, as well as a significant degradation of this country’s environment. The Green Party cannot be adjudged to be an environmentalist party, for its policies actively promote massive population expansion at the expense of the natural environment. It cannot claim to be a party of social justice, as it seeks to snuff out the existence of the peoples of Europe and to reduce the living standards of UK and European citizens.

The Green Party gives expression to a poisonous strand of masochistic thought in the UK and other European societies that sees our country, and other European and developed nations, as being the authors of all of the ills in the world. The Green Party seeks to punish us for ‘sins’ that we have never committed. Given this, who, in their right mind, if they happen to be English, Welsh, Scots or Irish, would vote for the Greens? If you genuinely care for the environment and a sustainable approach to population and resource use, do not vote Green. If you support the principles of democracy, and subscribe to the belief that politics, ultimately, should be concerned with the business of improving the wellbeing of the citizenry, then do not vote Green. If you believe that the Green Party will be different to all of the others because it is more honest and will not lie, think again. On 18 January the Guardian reported that Natalie Bennett had stated on the Andrew Marr Show that ‘the party did not have an open-door policy on immigration, but those who have a right to immigrate should be entitled to exercise that right. She also questioned why Germany had been willing to take 20,000 refugees from Syria, and the UK figure was in the low hundreds.’ How does that square with the Green Party’s clear and unequivocal policy statements on immigration? It doesn’t. The Green Party might look fluffy, but at its heart, lies something rather sinister, and fundamentally anti-progressive. Do not be duped!


  1. As far as I am aware the Green Party only has two good policies and they are:1) they are in favour of changing our archaic and fraudulent electoral system of first past the post to the German/New Zealand Additional Member System/Mixed-Member Proportional system of PR ( a better version of PR than the one the Lib Dems favour of the Single Transferable Vote) and 2.) they wish to reform the banking system radically and I believe I am correct in stating ending fractional reserve banking.

    Apart from that, they are as you have pointed-out a hardline socialist/neo-Marxist party which is very accurately dubbed by some people as the 'watermelon party' ie Green on the outside and Red on the inside.

    Many more people need to be aware of the Green Party's reckless, dangerous and fundamentally anti-British immigration policies and the fact that these policies prove the Greens are not really concerned about our enviroment at all.


  2. You make a good point regarding those two policies Barry, as they are both sound. Both banking and the political system require radical reform to help restore stability and trust. Unfortunately, I think that we are going to see quite a bit of attention lavished upon the Greens in the run-up to the General Election, with the small crumb of comfort being that the party will have a disproportionately negative impact upon Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

    Apparently, Andrew Neill recently floored Natalie Bennett in an interview (I missed it, as I believe it was screened during the day) by drawing attention to her party’s commitment to progressively reduce controls on immigration, but this is unlikely to be an aspect of Green policy that the BBC or any other broadcaster chooses to focus on.

  3. It was on the Daily Politics show, I believe. Yes, the press will make sure that that people are not made aware of their dangerous policies in this regard.


  4. 'If you support the principles of democracy, and subscribe to the belief that politics, ultimately, should be concerned with the business of improving the wellbeing of the citizenry, then do not vote Green.' The Green party are the only party that is taking a responsible long term view to solving the global environmental problems we face. Part of doing so has to involve removing the vast global inequality we see everywhere - a 'world without borders' has to be part of this. We need to look beyond our own selfish, parochial interests, and in doing so it is necessary to look beyond the short term interests of our own citizenry. In the long run the Green party seek to protect the citizenry of the world, which we are part of. As for 'democracy', can we seriously suggest that the UK is run democratically? I'd suggest it is rather more of a corporate plutocracy, which is clearly something the Greens would seek to change in favour of a more genuine democracy. As for their 'dangerous' policies - surely the policies of the mainstream parties are far more dangerous, in the way they largely ignore the potential environmental catastrophe we face and embrace damaging forms of energy production such as fracking? Things must change, and we must embrace that change, which includes not viewing sensible, responsible long term poilices as anti-British just because they do not seek to protect the wealth that we have gained at the expense of others.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.