The following declaration was written by Alistair McConnachie, and appeared in the Special Report on Sustainable Immigration, with the November 2002 issue of Sovereignty. Also see here and here.   A DECLARATION of  MORAL PRINCIPLES for a  SUSTAINABLE IMMIGRATION PROGRAMME The CONTEXT This is not a left wing/right wing thing. These moral principles can be understood, accepted, articulated and acted upon, across the political spectrum. We stand for freedom of speech, debate and enquiry, and the freedom to dissent from the prevailing political orthodoxy because we understand the truth emerges through the clash of competing ideas. We have a moral obligation to speak out. We are not morally bound to accept anything in silence. It is moral to believe in the nation-state, and in a world of distinct and diverse nation-states. It is moral to have a responsibility for the future. It is moral to care about the future of one's nation-state. This is our home. It's the only one we have. Most of us have nowhere else to go. It is moral to care about what kind of country our grandchildren will grow up in. It is moral to want our grandchildren to grow up in a country that our grandparents would recognise. We affirm that everyone who is here legally, is staying here, and won't be leaving except by their own free will. The PEOPLE National Self-Determination is the right of every People. Every People which considers itself to be a People, have the absolute right to determine their own National Existence. Every People of every Nation have the absolute right to control their borders, whether physical, economic or ideological, and determine their own immigration and population policies, and protect themselves from invasion, both military and peaceful. A People who cannot control their borders are not a Nation. Every People of every Nation have the absolute right to determine who shall, and who shall not, live among them, and in what numbers any newcomers may be present. Every People of every Nation have the absolute right to work politically to achieve their aims. Every People have a moral obligation to pass their national homeland to their successors in liveable condition. Every People have a moral obligation to do their own drudgery work. Expecting immigrants to do it is a form of slavery. The GOVERNMENT Every government has a moral obligation to provide for its own People first. Every government has a moral obligation to maintain and develop the standard of living for its People, and to match available job opportunities with the indigenous population, before importing labour. To drive down wages by importing labour is an immoral act of government, regardless of any presumed economic benefits on paper. Keeping wages low, for the alleged benefit of the economy, is the argument of the slave master throughout history. To the extent that many immigrants find jobs, they are not filling a "skills gap", they are filling a wages gap, and keeping labour costs low, often on the black market. Every government has a moral obligation to match the Nation's population with the Nation's social and environmental resources. No government should exceed its Nation's carrying capacity. For example, immigration is a large factor behind the pressure for new housing. Every government has a moral obligation to protect its People from crime and disease. Mass immigration brings both. Every government has a moral obligation to defend its Nation's borders and protect its People from invasion, both military and peaceful. Failing this duty is a treasonous act, by which a government demonstrates its illegitimacy. The WORLD It is moral to address the political, social, and economic problems which are fuelling migration world-wide, and to work to deliver solutions for the developing and developed world alike. It is moral to confront and solve problems of poverty and over-population where people live. It is moral to help people to stay where they are and change things for the better. It is immoral to avoid, postpone and exacerbate these problems by encouraging the mass movement of people elsewhere. It is immoral to encourage them to export their problems. Pressures caused by poverty and population growth in the developing world cannot be solved by exporting people to the developed world. Migration is not a responsible, moral, practical, or sustainable way for the human species to address its problems. We do not have a moral obligation to allow other countries to export their problems here. It is moral to strive for a decent standard of living where you live. It is moral to help others achieve it, in order that they do not have to migrate for economic purposes. It is moral to use your talent at home. It is moral to help others apply their skills where they live. Hard working, educated and entrepreneurial immigrants are needed most in their own home countries. It is immoral to encourage a brain drain and deprive developing countries of such people. Those who leave, and those who encourage them to do so, become part of the problem, not part of the solution. It is moral to struggle to change things at home rather than run away. Those who struggle to change things at home should be esteemed over those who flee. If everybody fled their country because of injustice or economic hardship, then wrongs would never be righted. The right to migrate is balanced by the right to refuse entry, and remove if necessary. (I cannot stop you leaving your home - but when you get to my front door, I can choose if I want to take you in, and refuse you if I don't.) On ASYLUM Immigrants have a moral obligation to indicate respect for the laws and customs of their new land by arriving legally and truthfully. In 1998, there were 46,015 applications for asylum, excluding dependants. Of decisions made, only 5,345 were recognised as "genuine". In 2000 there were 80,315 applications of whom 10,375 were recognised as "genuine". Many are abusing the system. We have a moral obligation to ensure our asylum policy is not open to abuse. If we allow tens of thousands of people to abuse the system, it becomes harder to help those genuinely in need. The right to seek asylum is balanced by the right to refuse and remove. The right to seek asylum is written into international law, via the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm which confers an automatic right of asylum, pending the legal process of the recipient country. That legal process can be as swift or as complicated as the recipient country chooses. We can change the legal process to ensure immediate removal at point of entry, or we can withdraw from the Convention so we are no longer bound to grant automatic asylum, or we can do both. There is no right to receive asylum. To claim a "right to receive asylum" would be a brazen and anti-democratic act. Consider the analogy of your home. A "right to receive asylum" would be saying effectively that anybody has the "right" to walk through your front door and set up home, and that you would then be required by law to keep and look after them. Any presumed "right to receive asylum" would amount to a complete denial of your right to exist as a self-determining individual. To receive asylum is a privilege which carries moral obligations. A Sustainable Immigration Programme is an Immigration Programme in accord with these Moral Principles.