Police and Controlled Immigration – Letter to John Horam MP
John Horam MP
House of Commons
XXX, 27 Oct. 04
Dear John Horam MP
I have been an XXX resident for more than 4 years. I do not have the right to vote, despite paying taxes, helping the community and the society as a whole by working honestly as everybody else. Change of citizenship would be possible, but it is a long process and there is neither practical incentive nor encouragement to do it.
If I’d vote, I would find it very hard to justify choosing the Conservative Party, whose only excellence in my eyes in 7 years of UK residency has been in taking the wrong side of almost every possible issue.
Nevertheless, I was aghast to find 2 particularly disturbing questions in your recent questionnaire.
Question 3: “As regards anti-social behaviour, do you think that the top priority should be getting more police out on the beat?”
This does strike me as populism, in the sense of proposing the “obvious” solution that everyone would in theory agree upon.
But in practice, it is well known that that is no solution at all. In order to effectively tackle head-on anti-social behaviour, the number of security forces “out on the beat” would have to be enormous, to the point of transforming Britain in a police state.
Police themselves are aware of that, and if I were one of them I would be incensed by the underlying suggestion that policemen and women are not doing their job properly at this moment.
You may also want to consider scientific analyses of the first consequence of “more police out on the beat”: people feeling less secure.
It is the non-obvious (but nonetheless true) result published on The Economist, 17/7/2003 (available on the Internet at
Question 4: “Would you support a strict limit on the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year?”
This smells like an even nastier version of populism. Leaving aside the question about how to calculate the value of such “strict limit”, I can only note that there is no mention of what to do with asylum seekers. Are you by any chance suggesting sending back to their countries, people that may be tortured/raped/killed upon arrival, only because some kind of quota has been reached? I hope not.
In general, how do you see the UK strengthened by having law-abiding people waste hours, weeks and months to legally get permission to contribute to the British society by working honestly as everybody else? On what basis are you implying that the UK is so weak-founded that it can tolerate only a certain “strict” amount of immigrants?
And would a “strict limit” not result actually in more opportunities, more money and more power for the criminals that would smuggle even more people than they do today?
Finally, how do you reconcile your “strict limitation of immigration” with the Gospel of Matthew, 25:34-36?
[…] Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Is Christianity not part of the British Heritage that the Conservative Party is supposed to champion and help future generations inherit?
That said, I sincerely hope the Conservative Party comes back to play a serious, effective opposition: for the good of this Country cannot be the overpowering domination of one political force (Labour or otherwise)