OUR AIM: DEVELOPING a POPULATION POLICY
Present levels of immigration into the UK are favoured by the ultra free-marketeers on the "right" who want total free movement of people and by the international socialists on the "left" who do not believe in the idea of nations, borders and distinct peoples in the first place, because we are all "workers of the world." We explain how their views coincide here.

This situation is sustained by a governing class in politics and the media who work to limit political debate, and it is informed by an orthodoxy built largely upon -- for want of a better term -- "anti-racist" philosophy.

In the face of this open border anarchy, Sovereignty seeks to develop a Population Policy which has a clear statement of purpose and which is driven according to long-term social, political and economic goals.

This Policy reflects a coherent vision of our desired demographic future and it provides the rules intended to move towards this future.

For example, as has been suggested by The Social Contract magazine, it enables us to decide how many immigrants should be admitted in accord with this purpose and it enables us to decide who should be admitted.

This involves all of us in discussions about basic values. It challenges those who prefer to emote about "diversity" instead of doing real economic, social, demographic, and environmental research.

It requires them to justify why the number of people entering Britain should be limited only by their ability to get here! It requires them to justify why they support the demographic transformation of our society.

It challenges the politicians and those parts of the media which have an unspoken agreement to keep this topic off the public agenda, and it challenges the underlying myths of "anti-racism" which inform their perspective.

Without a Population Policy, the country has no direction. There is no way of judging what the future holds. Society is destabilised, both physically and psychically.

With your help, Sovereignty will continue to develop this Population Policy.

We use pages in our monthly hard-copy Journal to set out comprehensive, coherent and concise population philosophy, aims, policies, arguments and rebuttals, and to document facts and statistics. We work to understand who and what we're up against, to report activism, and to share successful strategies to secure our sovereign borders in accord with our long-term sustainable population vision. We are invited to speak on radio programmes on this subject regularly.

Some of our articles are then put on this website. On this particular page we set out our clear Policy goals as of June 2008. The material on this page is a summary of material which is examined in more depth in other articles on this website and to which we have linked.

SUMMARY of our ZERO GROSS IMMIGRATION POLICY
Zero Net Immigration (ZNI) means that no more people should enter than leave. No more in, than out.

Zero Gross Immigration (ZGI) means that the actual inflow is zero -- with the exception of particular groups, as below -- rather than the net difference, which is the inflow minus the outflow.

A Sustainable Immigration policy requires, at the very least, a policy of Zero Net Immigration and ideally we advocate moving towards a Zero Gross Immigration policy.

When we speak about ZNI or ZGI, we are speaking about people accepted for permanent settlement, not those who come here temporarily, and then presumably go back home.

Under Zero Net Immigration, the change in population over a given period will be the difference between births and deaths. In this case, if you replace people who will not have many children on average, by people who will have many children on average, then that will later add more to the population.

However, under Zero Gross Immigration, the change in population will be the difference between births and deaths, minus the number who emigrate.

ZNI and ZGI puts the apologists of mass Immigration-Invasion onto the defensive by forcing them to explain why it is necessary to have more people entering this country than leaving. This they cannot do, without revealing themselves as people whose real agenda is to change Britain demographically. They have no case, especially when there are several million unemployed people already in the UK.

Advocacy of ZNI or ZGI must also be coupled with advocacy for policies which will deliver global economic justice to the countries from which economic migrants are leaving.

It is unrealistic to imagine that all immigration can be stopped entirely. After all, there are at least 6 areas of immigration where immigrants will still be entering the UK, and these must be factored as part of the overall immigration inflow under ZNI, or be part of the excepted groups under ZGI. The aim should be to keep these numbers as low as possible.

SUMMARY of our ASYLUM POLICY
Recognising that Westminster should be the sole law-making authority on immigration and asylum issues in Britain and recognising that outside the EU we will regain control of our own borders, enabling us to carry out the following programme of reform, we propose as part of our wider Asylum policy:

• Abolish Automatic Right to Asylum
  So long as Britain is signed up to the Convention, we are required to admit whoever claims asylum, and keep them here, pending a lengthy legal process to determine their claim to refugee status. As open-borders advocate Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman of 7 October 2002, "The convention has nullified the efforts of successive governments to close Britain's borders." Therefore it is necessary to…

• Withdraw from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 New York Protocol.
  As Matthew Parris wrote in The Times of June 29, 2002: Sometimes, something is so plain that we dare not acknowledge it. At the root of all our difficulties over immigration lies a simple cause, and nobody in mainstream politics has the guts to admit it. It is the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. It is unsustainable and it must go. If we cannot reach agreement internationally to wind it down, then Britain should unilaterally withdraw. ("This foolish convention on refugees must be scrapped")

  The 1951 Convention is outdated and is being abused. It was not intended as a means to move economic migrants around the world, nor for those who are merely dissatisfied with life at home.

  It will not be possible to "amend" this international document, therefore we need to withdraw from it so we are no longer bound by it, and if necessary institute our own Convention, addressing our own needs.

  As our Declaration of Moral Principles (Sovereignty, Nov 02) makes clear, we believe everyone has a moral obligation to work to make things better where they live, and to involve themselves in the important work of restoration at home. Those who struggle to change things at home should be esteemed over those who simply run away.

• Legislate to ignore specific aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights
  which prevent implementation of asylum reform, such as Article 3 which prevents deportation of foreign nationals judged to be a risk to security.

• Quota of 2,000 Asylees a Year
  This is "principle applicants", excluding dependents. For the latter part of the 1980s, when the world was just as dangerous as it is today, arguably more so, asylum applications were stable and few. "Asylum" applications started to rocket from 1989 onwards, although still well below numbers today, as above.

  For example, in the 5-year period from 1984-1988 the average annual number of principle applicants "recognised as a refugee" or "not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave" was 1,934.

  Over the following 6 years the average annual number accepted almost quadrupled to 7,621 (See Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Asylum Statistics, United Kingdom 1994, which also details the previous 10 years).

  We aim to bring numbers down to 2,000 a year in order to approximate the historically precedent, annual average for the relatively stable 5-year period, 1984-1988, before "asylum" applications rocketed and before the system became discredited.

Our task is to formulate realistic arguments which aim for it to be held as low as possible. Campaigning for refugee numbers accepted for settlement to come down to the annual average of 20 years ago -- that is, a quota of 2,000 principal applicants accepted a year -- is an attainable goal for which one can argue within our present political circumstances. It would be a huge improvement upon the out-of-control situation which we have at the moment and we believe it is a goal for which we should aim.

Once we have the principal established and working, that refugee numbers should be as few as possible, then we can look to restrict numbers even more, if necessary.

However, it is important to note that our suggested maximum quota of 2,000 principal applicants accepted for settlement per year would only work within the context of the other reforms which we have suggested -- the first being to abolish the automatic right of asylum. It is this outdated "right" which is presently allowing huge numbers of bogus asylum seekers to apply for "refuge" in the first place. Most of these people remain after their applications have failed.

With that spurious "right of asylum" abolished, the numbers applying would fall considerably. Then, with no lengthy Appeals process, with a secure and speedy returns process and with things made as difficult for them as possible while they are here, we would begin to approach a more manageable and sustainable situation.