Cal Thomas waxes philosophic on England’s citizens fleeing the decaying ruins of their country in this piece courtesy of RCP:

BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND — Perhaps there will not always be an England. An exodus unprecedented in modern times, coupled with a record influx of foreigners, is threatening to erode the character of the land of William Shakespeare and overpowering monarchs, a land that served as the cradle for much of American thought, law and culture.

The figures, making headlines in London newspapers, tell only part of the story. Between June 2005 and June 2006 nearly 200,000 British citizens chose to leave the country for a new life elsewhere. During the same period, at least 574,000 immigrants came to Britain. This number does not include the people who broke the law to get there, or the thousands unknown to the government. Britain’s Office of National Statistics reports that middle-class Britons are beginning to move out of towns in southern England that have become home to large numbers of immigrants, thereby altering the character of neighborhoods that have remained unchanged for generations.

Britons give many reasons for leaving, but their stories share one commonality: life in Britain has become unbearable for them. They fear lawlessness and the threat of more terrorism from a growing Muslim population and the loss of a sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture of the nation to the next generation. What it means to be British has been watered down in a plague of political correctness that has swept the country faster than hoof-and-mouth disease. Officials say they do not wish to “offend” others.

Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers are about to be granted “amnesty” to stay in Britain. The government’s approach is similar to that pursued by President Bush, who failed to win congressional approval for his amnesty plan. In Britain it appears likely to succeed. Migrants will be granted immediate access to many benefits, including top priority for council housing. Taxpayers will foot the bill.

The Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, called the policy a “stealth amnesty.” Again, in a comment reminiscent of the debate in America, Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said: “This is yet another example of the Alice in Wonderland world of human rights. If you break British law for long enough, you acquire rights not penalties.”

Theo Sparks points us to this story from the Daily Mail:

he number of households in which nobody works for a living rose to more than three million this summer, official figures revealed yesterday.

Among them were a growing number of lone parent families – the first increase in the figure for single parent homes entirely dependent on benefits in five years.

The statistics point towards a failure for Labour’s policy of spending billions on benefits, childcare and incentive schemes intended to persuade those without jobs – and single mothers in particular – into employment.

The figure of three million workless homes is particularly bleak because it includes only those where there is someone of working age – defined as between 18 and 65 whether claiming a disability or not, but excluding students.

Last month the Whitehall spending watchdog attacked ministers for their failure to reduce workless numbers.

The National Audit Office warned that those living in workless households are at risk of permanent joblessness and poverty and face falling into a spiral of ill-health and crime.

Yesterday’s figures from the Office for National Statistics show the number of men and women of working age who live in homes where nobody has a job has risen to 4,348,000, the highest since 1999.

Lionheart has a powerful post up about the ravages of the Pakistani Muslim dominated drug trade on his home town, and the inaction of British authorities that makes it possible.

The Times On-line has reported that children are being taken from their parents, unjustly, by the state to meet target numbers set by the state:

Record numbers of young children are being taken from their parents and adopted – sometimes unjustly – to meet government targets, it is claimed today.

Each year some 1,300 babies under a month old are placed in care before adoption, compared with 500 when the Government came to power, BBC Radio 4’s Face the Facts claims today.

The programme is told that there are now more than 100 cases of possible miscarriages of justice in which children have been forcibly or unjustly adopted.

It says that the number of parents in England who have lost their children, despite insufficient evidence that they were causing them harm, has reached record levels.

One reason, according to social workers, is that they are under pressure to meet government adoption targets – in line with ministers’ policy for more children in care to be adopted.

At the same time, it is claimed, parents are not always given a proper chance to challenge adoptions because of the short time limit for appeals and the secrecy of the family courts. Lawyers say that hearings in private fuel parents’ sense of injustice and can in some cases breed bad practice, preventing them from properly defending themselves.

Sarah Harman, a family law solicitor, said: “Secrecy breeds bad practice, it breeds suspicion. It feeds parents’ sense of injustice when they have their children removed that they’re not able to talk about it. They’re not able to air their grievances. Children have been removed from their families unjustly. There’s no two ways about that.”

A social work manager with 25 years’ experience in child protection added that parents had little chance of getting a hearing and overturning a decision made by the authorities.

The manager told the BBC: “People will find that their children have been removed and freed for adoption without them having had a proper chance to defend themselves and their families and their children.”

It’s almost as if pursuing progressive social policies creates more problems than they solve. Hmmm.

England needs another Thatcher!