Gladys Berejiklian Quotes

Europe can't take in huge masses of foreign people in an unlimited, uncontrolled manner.

I am against the policy which would promote the entry of immigrants into Europe, which cannot accept them.

We can bring immigration down to sustainable levels.

If Europe's outer border is not blocked off, it makes no sense to speak of quotas.

I'm the daughter of proud immigrants myself, but it's clear that successive federal governments have allowed the rate of immigration to NSW to balloon out of control.

We believe in immigration, but we don't believe in mass immigration.

I personally believe that a democratic society is morally entitled to set and enforce a limit on the number of new immigrants admitted each year.

I don't know the right number of immigrants to let in.

The U. S.'s moral responsibility to accept immigrants is not unlimited.

… we are answerable to an electorate which is uncomfortable with destabilizing mass immigration.

I am in favour of migration; I simply want to control the numbers.

We are already overcrowded. There's no more room, and we must shut the borders.

UKIP believe that immigration can be an extremely positive thing. But it has to be controlled.

The right kind of immigrants can benefit the British economy enormously, but no country can accept indiscriminate, unlimited immigration.

Brexit doesn't guarantee that migration will come down.

I'm the only one who is saying, 'Let's take fewer immigrants.' We want people to integrate, we don't want ghettos in Canada.

We'd accept Germany either allowing all migrants in or not allowing any in. But whatever Germany decides should only apply to Germany.

Surely everyone can agree that immigration should be controlled.

I'm not suggesting we suddenly become a jingoistic, closed-door society that erects barricades at Dover. That would not be in the interests of London. But we can't, in my view, go on for ever accepting an unlimited number of people.

Immigration is a legitimate concern, but it's not a good reason to leave the E.U.

I see neither the sense nor the need to stick to an immigration figure devised nearly a decade ago, which has never been met and does not fit the requirements of the country.

We're not radical when we are speaking about fewer immigrants.

At times in the past, the U.S. did not restrict the number of immigrants.

This type of mass influx is simply too much to handle. What we've had since the disaster of the 1965 Immigration Act will take 100 years or more to absorb.

In 1939 I hadn't even realized that this was an immigration problem.