Nations need borders
Sir: Austen Ivereigh (‘Let’s sort out the migration mess’, 17 March) argues that giving an amnesty to the 500,000-odd illegal immigrants in Britain offers a practical solution to our immigration problem. The policy sounds wonderful and comforting, but the reality is that it will send out a trumpet call to people to come here illegally in the knowledge that they will be made legal later. The experience of the United States makes the point. Since 1986 alone, it has given seven amnesties covering millions of illegal immigrants. The result has been that the number of illegal immigrants has rocketed from below four million in 1980 to around 10 million today (accounting for 30 per cent of the foreign-born population).
Frank Field
MP for Birkenhead
House of Commons, London SW1
Sir: Austen Ivereigh’s proposal of an amnesty for illegal immigrants is an insult not only to the indigenous citizens of Britain but also to the millions of immigrant citizens who have entered this country legally and who work hard and pay their taxes. Mr Ivereigh cites some anonymous examples of gainfully employed immigrants denied benefits, healthcare and the rights of free movement (to attend the deaths of close family members, naturally). How about the example of the legitimate, church-going immigrant Zainab Kalokoh, murdered at a christening party in Peckham by a gang of three illegal immigrants, led by one Roberto Malasi, who had killed another British woman two weeks earlier? Perhaps Mr Ivereigh would welcome Mr Malasi as a fellow citizen; I’m rather glad that he will be deported at the end of his lengthy sentence.
The idea that an amnesty would somehow address the problem of terrorism and criminality — presumably by reducing the field of inquiry for a freed-up immigration taskforce — is ludicrous. Does Mr Ivereigh imagine that illegal immigrants, here for criminal or terrorist purposes, would be easier to find? No, in the real world, as opposed to the state-funded charityworld that pays Mr Ivereigh’s wages, nation states need borders and immigration controls as well as properly and fairly applied immigration policies.
Andrew Sim
Blackheath, London SE3
Churchill and the Jews
Sir: In his piece ‘Churchill was “too fond of the Jews”’ (17 March), Sir Martin Gilbert suggests that Winston Churchill should not be held responsible for the article ‘How the Jews Can Combat Persecution’, which was commissioned from him in 1937 by the US magazine Liberty and to which I draw attention in my book, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness. Sir Martin and I both agree that the article was drafted by a ghost-writer, Adam Marshall Diston.
It has been reported in some parts of the media that Churchill rejected Diston’s draft because he did not agree with it. I note that Sir Martin does not make that claim in his article, but rather observes that Churchill’s piece ‘was twice offered for publication’. It would seem that the grounds of debate have narrowed considerably. On the one hand, there is the contention that although Churchill tried to get the article published, he was not answerable for its contents because his efforts to do so were unsuccessful. On the other is my argument that Churchill’s attempts to get it into print under his own name demonstrate that in 1937 (though not in 1940, when the question arose again) he was happy to endorse the sentiments it contained.
Richard Toye
Homerton College, Cambridge
Bucking the Convention
Sir: As Charles Moore points out, the government’s plans to reform the House of Lords seem as uncertain as ever (The Spectator’s Notes, 17 March). But one point seems to have escaped the commentators: I believe very firmly that the agreement which led to the Salisbury Convention back in 1945 became nothing less than a constitutional settlement between the two Houses. The new Labour government, with its huge majority (and the Parliament Act provisions of 1911), could easily have removed the hereditary peers or even abolished the House of Lords altogether. It chose not to do so in return for the famous undertaking from Viscount Cranborne that the Lords would not seek to prevent the enactment in principle of Bills implementing manifesto commitments.
I am quite certain that the 1999 House of Lords Act was indeed a departure from previous solemn and, I would say, binding undertakings. It therefore follows that the Salisbury Convention is now a dead letter. There may be other arguments in favour of — generally speaking — allowing the will of the House of Commons to prevail, but a new convention is now urgently needed. No one is bound by the old one.
Rt Hon. Lord Trefgarne PC
House of Lords, SW1
League of cat and mice
Sir: It would appear that the relationship between cats and mice is more symbiotic than Paul Johnson suggests (And another thing, 17 March). We never had mice until we got our cat. He brings them in through the catflap alive and undamaged. They are then released by the cat for a merry chase around the furniture, my wife and myself until they find safe refuge. Then they take up residence, once in the washing machine, but mostly in the cupboard containing the dried catfood, where they live in comfort. Once established, they are totally ignored by the cat.
David Mitchell
Bromelys, Llangors, Brecon
Give him enough Roper…
Sir: Emma Tennant’s letter on 17 March reminds me of a further retort by my uncle, John Scott, to Hugh Trevor-Roper. This occurred on the hunting field, when John greeted the professor with, ‘Morning, Roper.’ Again the reply was, ‘My name is Trevor-Roper,’ to which John replied, ‘My dear fellow, I don’t know you nearly well enough to call you Trevor!’
Charles Bell
Evanton, Ross-shire
Comments