Direct Democracy proposal for Immigration

Immigration Policy to be defined by the UK and not by the European Parliament

The People's Administration proposes to work with the Balanced Migration Group and believes that refugees fleeing institutional persecution or natural disasters should be given priority over economic migrants. We acknowledge that pressure placed upon public services within the UK is greatly amplified by the effects of recent immigration and that if the infrastructure of our society collapses then our economy and social cohesion will also suffer greatly. However, we do not believe that UK-born residents should be given an automatic right in law, to obtain employment over foreign-born UK residents and, we perceive this belief to be racist and believe that ALL UK citizens should be afforded the same rights - regardless of their country of origin or of any other factor.

UKip; 'British-born citizens should be given more employment rights than other British citizens'

We believe that the issue of mass non-EU immigration is best resolved by directly addressing the reasons for why so many people choose to leave a country at the same time and, we do not think that it's just a 'coincidence' that most who migrate to the UK from outside the EU come from countries where UK foreign policy has been instrumental in creating the conditions that have caused them to seek safety in foreign lands as refugees. In recent years, most are from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria [countries that the UK has invaded] and, they come to the UK because they believed the UK government's propaganda [for hearts and minds] which tells them that we're intervening for reasons relating to their own protection and regime change only. After the UK ceases its interventions, it does NOT implement the rebuilding programmes or democratic processes that it sells to these people before destroying their country and with no understanding of our hypocrisy, they come to the UK feeling that they will be welcomed and cared for [as promised by our freely-elected UK dictators]. For one thing, the UK is the only country in the world that is guaranteed to be free of UK-led bombing!

In order to pander to the nationalist fears of a deliberately misinformed electorate, the UK government refuses to take-in the refugees that it co-creates.

Unreported by the mainstream media, David Cameron's unelected, self-appointed Saudi 'Royal' family ally that beheads more civilians than ISIS ever could has 100,000 empty air-conditioned tents ready for Islamic worship. It's ruling King [who suffers from alzheimer's] refuses to take a single Syrian Islamic refugee and in a blatant demonstration of religious hypocrisy, not one single Islamic country that David Cameron sells weapons to will take any Syrian refugees. Through this single act, the Saudi regime confirms that for them, religious worship is more important than caring for others - even within their own religion!

The truth behind Cameron's ludicrous asylum claims

Put simply, while the UK electorate freely votes for those who invade other countries on false pretenses [even if lawful], the UK will have mass immigration issues. Through the use of extreme violence, we turn their countries into failed states and abandon them after fulfilling our remit [regime change only] and so in desperation, they come to the UK - why would they think to go anywhere else? Any that survive the journey then face poverty, psychological trauma, ultra-nationalist and extremist intimidation and a detention system that is so corrupt and abusive that after David Cameron repeatedly blocked UN monitors from gaining access to centres, it publicly disclosed to the world that the UK's entire asylum detention system was unlawful.

Closing the UK's borders would have little impact upon the issues that people are genuinely concerned about [such as jobs and access to public services] and we believe that the issue of immigration is being used as a smoke screen to cover for over-population. However, any MP who chose to deal with this issue would be committing career suicide because any potential solutions would have to at least involve implementing policies that would restrict UK breeding habits. This could then entail challenging specific social groups [including any religions which have a stated policy of proliferated breeding] about an issue that is still regarded by most as a right, and not a privilege.

The fact that 200,000 new houses need to be built every year just to cater for demand from nationals [not immigrants], confirms that the UK has an over-population problem and that the issue of immigration is a red herring.

UK survey [end of 2013]:
Biggest concern = immigration and the economy
Smallest concern = the environment

The reality according to environmental and economic scientists:
Biggest threat = the environment
Biggest aid to economy = immigration

Conclusion:
The UK people's fears [incited and capitalised upon by the Conservatives, UKip and other right-wing parties] of a threat from foreigners is of more importance than the future well-being of every child, animal and plant and, it is because adults continually fail to consider these entities that the PA exists.

Despite the name Muhammed becoming acknowledged as the most popular name in England [1st Dec. 2014], UKip's voters and anti-EU racists fail to see that this represents a home-grown, rapidly-expanding Islamic population within England itself. As a solution for dealing with over-breeding without targeting any specific group, we propose that the state pays child-related benefits for the first child only and, for all families regardless of race, religion or any other factor. At present, the UK tax payer is funding the expansion of the UK population because most families who have more than one child can only do so because they are subsidised by state benefits.

NOTE: By identifying any group as a prolific contributor to a population increase, we express only an observation and offer no opinion or judgements about such groups [positive or negative].

Under UKip [and now also the Conservatives and Labour], legal EU immigrants [who are probably the biggest single contributors to the UK economy] will be blocked from entering the UK while illegal EU immigrants and legal immigrants from outside of the EU will remain unrestricted because, UKip's policies mostly target legal EU immigrants only. In addition to this, the UK economy could potentially also be hit through the cost of funding welfare and support payments for the 2.5 million Brits who could be expelled from the EU in response to anti-EU policies and, the UK's over-population problem will remain unresolved. Fundamentally, UKip's running costs [including donations] combined with the costs of anti-immigration protests means that just arguing about immigration probably costs us more than immigrants do.

While stating that immigrant parents who have UK-born children can stay for a fixed period, none of these parties will disclose or publish their long-term policies for how they intend to split these families apart [or of the terrible consequences in doing so] but, while the UK electorate cares more to blame foreigners for their own over-population issues than it cares for its own children, Nazi-oriented parties will surely get their way.

Immigrants do not 'take' jobs. They simply apply to fulfil available vacancies [just like British people can] so, these jobs are not held by anyone and so are not taken from anyone. When UK-based employers seek to recruit from abroad before recruiting within the UK, the issue that needs addressing is with the employer's practice [not the immigrant's attitude]. Put simply; British people who complain that 'their' jobs are 'taken' from them by immigrants, do not resent British people when these same jobs are filled by Brits and, they also do not care to address the motives of employers who primarily hire from abroad.

To summarise; immigrants generate a financial net-gain while British people take more than they pay-in and as well as the Brits themselves, the multimillionaire donors of ALL of the so-called 'representative' parties costs the UK economy too because unlike immigrants, they do NOT actually create wealth and instead, they are now a massive financial burden.

PA Video PA direct democracy video: Poll confirms UK is ignorant and racist - thinks immigration figure is twice what it is

UK immigrants bring in more than we pay them in benefits
UK cuts aid to African AIDS fund - now faces bankruptcy
Pandering to UKip voters, Cameron ends Med S&R funding - people will die
Cameron's S&R propaganda blown out of the water by the Royal Navy
Cameron withdraws last rescue ships - after 15 children drown in Aegean Sea!
'Anti-establishment' UKip merges with holocaust denier to take £millions from EU tax payers

Voting for direct democracy outside a general election

Direct Democracy - Audio

It is up to us, the people [not the politicians] to use the power that we have always had, to choose to implement direct democracy as soon as possible.

This is not a protest campaign.

In accordance with Magna Carta Article 61 and with UN UDHR Article 21 and with all democratic principals up-held by the UN [which the UK is signed-up to], the People's Administration's Direct Democracy Twitter blog is a UN-sanctioned and legally recognised voting format for UK reform to direct democracy - even outside a general election.

Vote legitimately for a peaceful and structured UK reform to direct democracy now simply by following the People's Administration's Direct Democracy Twitter blog and when numbers reach a point of critical mass, we'll do the rest.

Follow: @self_rule

The People's Administration's constitution for reform to direct democracy and our voting protocols for implementing direct democracy have both been accepted by the UK Electoral Commission and the UN as legitimate. In a general election, the People's Administration DOES NOT have to field candidates to secure your vote on the ballot paper. Outside a general election, you can vote for a legitimate reform to direct democracy now by following @self_rule