Lies being spread about immigration
Milne | 10.06.2003 21:54
Immigration: We Are Being Lied To!
Anthony Milne takes on the ‘Britain needs 'em’ lobby
Politics in Britain is now only about self-destruction and kleptocracy, African style. In other words, it is ruin by half-educated gits who think that this country belongs to them to give it away to foreigners without any economic, cultural or social benefit whatsoever accruing in return.
After decades during which successive governments have promised, year by year, that they would curb immigration; after years of ‘anti-immigration’ laws, from the 1990s onwards a new despicable crew have taken over this country, and have an entirely different view of what Britain is and should be, a view that says that "we ‘need’ 150,000 immigrants a year." This is a straightforward lie. It is propaganda for ulterior motives - to create a mixed-race society for its own sake. What other reason could there be? Could it be that immigration, now running at 190,000 a year, is out of control, so that they are trying to make a virtue out of a vice?
Britain is now one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Just a few examples: Zambia has 11 people per square kilometre, Brazil 18 and Syria 67. And Great Britain? 235 people per sq km! But that's only the half of it. If one takes England alone, this brings the population density up to 383 people per sq km! England is more overcrowded even than other European countries. Germany, for example has 227 people per sq km, France 105 per sq km and the US 29 per sq km. So England is twice as crowded as Germany, four times as crowded as France and about 12 times as crowded as the United States.
The argument runs that Britain has an ageing population, with a below-replacement level of fertility. Thus we need more immigrants who can continue to create the wealth that the elderly will ultimately have to depend on for their pensions and healthcare needs. It is suggested that there is a shortage of workers in nursing, catering, tourism and the like.
But one major reason for this is low wages, not a shortage of people. The hospitality industry can make an attractive career for many. The glaring paradox is that high levels of immigration itself depress wages further, thus exacerbating the problem of ‘labour shortages’ that encourages unscrupulous firms to employ yet more (often illegal) immigrants.
If companies find they cannot compete in the labour supply market except by paying sweatshop wages, then they should simply not be allowed to trade. The salaries of public workers in hospital and nursing homes could be dramatically raised through the extra billions that could be clawed back annually from the EU.
The pro-immigration argument is deeply flawed in other ways. A ‘labour shortage’ implies that single young workers should come to Britain as ‘guest-workers’. But what actually happens is that a nurse from Nigeria, for example, will be entitled to bring her young family with her, or to marry here. Ultimately, she herself, and her family, will need not only health care but also housing, education and a state pension. Hence immigration is a form of consumption rather than production. More immigrants will be needed to service the requirements of the enlarged population, itself increasingly made up of people of immigrant origin.
Indeed, ‘replacement immigration’ studies have yielded some alarming figures. A government actuary, Chris Shaw, has argued that in order to maintain a support ratio of the equivalent of a fertility rate of just 3.23 children per woman by 2050 (to help overhaul the decline in present fertility levels) the UK would need a million immigrants a year!
Revolutionary change
On the other hand, Dr David Coleman, reader in demography at Oxford University, points out that any population permanently needing immigrants would ultimately become all immigrants! He reminds us that if immigration were entirely open-ended (as it is at present, since no upper limit has been declared by the politicians) "it would bring about a revolutionary change to the racial make-up of Britain."
Coleman has written that: "The net immigration required to preserve the support ratio increases unevenly to reach nearly six million per year in 2100." By that time, he suggests, Britain's population size, working on these ‘requirement’ assumptions, would reach some 303 million! Even in the near future, Britain would need another 11.3 million new houses if the present level of immigration is allowed to continue. Dr. Coleman is one of the very few courageous men in prominent and influential positions in this country. He is an academic, and has to be taken seriously. But he is a virtual one-man band, expert in his knowledge of demographics, attending conferences and presenting immigration figures that cannot be disproved or dismissed. And he is bravely prepared - unlike his colleagues - to point out the racial consequences of continued immigration, which is almost entirely from third world countries.
What is so shameful about British politicians is that they purposely and single-mindedly aim to destroy all political opposition to their immigration policies. The BNP is simply regarded as a ‘racist’ party, which is demonised and slandered at every opportunity. But the same kind of attacks are made on any other group or organisation that has any kind of nationalist fringe to it, and this includes any pro-countryside or so-called ‘Little Englander’ movements.
Even the UK Independence Party has to be extremely careful about what it says about immigration - to the extent that it doesn't even mention it! So what's the point of complaining about "how national identity being taken away" if the black immigrants are doing it right under our noses and there is damn-all the UKIP is prepared do about it. Anyone who takes all the trouble to get into opposition politics, and talks about our ‘identity’ without mentioning immigration and race, is just wasting his time and making himself look a fool. He will be tolerated only because he talks about anything except immigration and race. The so-called Celtic ‘nationalist’ parties wouldn't survive for one minute if they dared to be genuine nationalist parties, and said things like "Wales for the Welsh" or "Scotland for the Scots." They would he destroyed.
Pressure groups useless
This is why new anti-immigration pressure groups, which think they know how the system works and are trying to exploit loopholes, are similarly doomed. Some go to great lengths to prove that they are not ‘movements’ or ‘parties’. Sir Andrew Green, for instance, is a former diplomat and is trying to raise serious awareness about the harm of continued immigration through his Migration Watch UK group, which operates only through the Internet and has recruited experts like Dr. Coleman to give advice. The tragedy is that Sir Andrew thinks he is shrewd and "knows the score." True, he has tried to make sure that no one can accuse his pressure group of being a ‘racist’ organisation. "We have avoided becoming a movement," he says, "because it could get taken over by unwelcome elements, and we have no links with political parties."
Well, good luck to him! But he talks as if people don't know the facts, even though they say ‘No’ time and time again to more immigration in every single opinion poll that reports them.
People who still believe this country is a ‘democracy’ are more than plain naive; they are stupid. If immigration hasn't stopped now, and is actually getting worse, and people time and time again say they want it stopped, then what is the point of coming out with fey, bushy-tailed remarks like those of Sir Andrew? Just listen to his breathtaking, and rather touching, confidence : "If once people are aware of the facts, and they give their assent to large-scale immigration, then that is the right result of the democratic process."
Of course it is. That is why it won't happen.
Anthony Milne takes on the ‘Britain needs 'em’ lobby
Politics in Britain is now only about self-destruction and kleptocracy, African style. In other words, it is ruin by half-educated gits who think that this country belongs to them to give it away to foreigners without any economic, cultural or social benefit whatsoever accruing in return.
After decades during which successive governments have promised, year by year, that they would curb immigration; after years of ‘anti-immigration’ laws, from the 1990s onwards a new despicable crew have taken over this country, and have an entirely different view of what Britain is and should be, a view that says that "we ‘need’ 150,000 immigrants a year." This is a straightforward lie. It is propaganda for ulterior motives - to create a mixed-race society for its own sake. What other reason could there be? Could it be that immigration, now running at 190,000 a year, is out of control, so that they are trying to make a virtue out of a vice?
Britain is now one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Just a few examples: Zambia has 11 people per square kilometre, Brazil 18 and Syria 67. And Great Britain? 235 people per sq km! But that's only the half of it. If one takes England alone, this brings the population density up to 383 people per sq km! England is more overcrowded even than other European countries. Germany, for example has 227 people per sq km, France 105 per sq km and the US 29 per sq km. So England is twice as crowded as Germany, four times as crowded as France and about 12 times as crowded as the United States.
The argument runs that Britain has an ageing population, with a below-replacement level of fertility. Thus we need more immigrants who can continue to create the wealth that the elderly will ultimately have to depend on for their pensions and healthcare needs. It is suggested that there is a shortage of workers in nursing, catering, tourism and the like.
But one major reason for this is low wages, not a shortage of people. The hospitality industry can make an attractive career for many. The glaring paradox is that high levels of immigration itself depress wages further, thus exacerbating the problem of ‘labour shortages’ that encourages unscrupulous firms to employ yet more (often illegal) immigrants.
If companies find they cannot compete in the labour supply market except by paying sweatshop wages, then they should simply not be allowed to trade. The salaries of public workers in hospital and nursing homes could be dramatically raised through the extra billions that could be clawed back annually from the EU.
The pro-immigration argument is deeply flawed in other ways. A ‘labour shortage’ implies that single young workers should come to Britain as ‘guest-workers’. But what actually happens is that a nurse from Nigeria, for example, will be entitled to bring her young family with her, or to marry here. Ultimately, she herself, and her family, will need not only health care but also housing, education and a state pension. Hence immigration is a form of consumption rather than production. More immigrants will be needed to service the requirements of the enlarged population, itself increasingly made up of people of immigrant origin.
Indeed, ‘replacement immigration’ studies have yielded some alarming figures. A government actuary, Chris Shaw, has argued that in order to maintain a support ratio of the equivalent of a fertility rate of just 3.23 children per woman by 2050 (to help overhaul the decline in present fertility levels) the UK would need a million immigrants a year!
Revolutionary change
On the other hand, Dr David Coleman, reader in demography at Oxford University, points out that any population permanently needing immigrants would ultimately become all immigrants! He reminds us that if immigration were entirely open-ended (as it is at present, since no upper limit has been declared by the politicians) "it would bring about a revolutionary change to the racial make-up of Britain."
Coleman has written that: "The net immigration required to preserve the support ratio increases unevenly to reach nearly six million per year in 2100." By that time, he suggests, Britain's population size, working on these ‘requirement’ assumptions, would reach some 303 million! Even in the near future, Britain would need another 11.3 million new houses if the present level of immigration is allowed to continue. Dr. Coleman is one of the very few courageous men in prominent and influential positions in this country. He is an academic, and has to be taken seriously. But he is a virtual one-man band, expert in his knowledge of demographics, attending conferences and presenting immigration figures that cannot be disproved or dismissed. And he is bravely prepared - unlike his colleagues - to point out the racial consequences of continued immigration, which is almost entirely from third world countries.
What is so shameful about British politicians is that they purposely and single-mindedly aim to destroy all political opposition to their immigration policies. The BNP is simply regarded as a ‘racist’ party, which is demonised and slandered at every opportunity. But the same kind of attacks are made on any other group or organisation that has any kind of nationalist fringe to it, and this includes any pro-countryside or so-called ‘Little Englander’ movements.
Even the UK Independence Party has to be extremely careful about what it says about immigration - to the extent that it doesn't even mention it! So what's the point of complaining about "how national identity being taken away" if the black immigrants are doing it right under our noses and there is damn-all the UKIP is prepared do about it. Anyone who takes all the trouble to get into opposition politics, and talks about our ‘identity’ without mentioning immigration and race, is just wasting his time and making himself look a fool. He will be tolerated only because he talks about anything except immigration and race. The so-called Celtic ‘nationalist’ parties wouldn't survive for one minute if they dared to be genuine nationalist parties, and said things like "Wales for the Welsh" or "Scotland for the Scots." They would he destroyed.
Pressure groups useless
This is why new anti-immigration pressure groups, which think they know how the system works and are trying to exploit loopholes, are similarly doomed. Some go to great lengths to prove that they are not ‘movements’ or ‘parties’. Sir Andrew Green, for instance, is a former diplomat and is trying to raise serious awareness about the harm of continued immigration through his Migration Watch UK group, which operates only through the Internet and has recruited experts like Dr. Coleman to give advice. The tragedy is that Sir Andrew thinks he is shrewd and "knows the score." True, he has tried to make sure that no one can accuse his pressure group of being a ‘racist’ organisation. "We have avoided becoming a movement," he says, "because it could get taken over by unwelcome elements, and we have no links with political parties."
Well, good luck to him! But he talks as if people don't know the facts, even though they say ‘No’ time and time again to more immigration in every single opinion poll that reports them.
People who still believe this country is a ‘democracy’ are more than plain naive; they are stupid. If immigration hasn't stopped now, and is actually getting worse, and people time and time again say they want it stopped, then what is the point of coming out with fey, bushy-tailed remarks like those of Sir Andrew? Just listen to his breathtaking, and rather touching, confidence : "If once people are aware of the facts, and they give their assent to large-scale immigration, then that is the right result of the democratic process."
Of course it is. That is why it won't happen.
Milne
