The truth is that immigration was not inevitable on the scale on which it took place, and that its effects have ranged from the pleasing – more ethnic food – to the positive – more cultural diversity – to the truly terrible – race riots, social tension, terrorist attacks.
Even the Guardian, in 2009, admitted immigration is a risky and unnecessary experiment…
Immigration on the scale that Europe has experienced constitutes a risky experiment to which we need not have submitted ourselves, and of which the final result is not yet clear….. we frequently talk about it in stupid and dishonest ways.
In a week in which the European election results have shown the potency of the anti-immigrant vote in many countries, including Britain, Christopher Caldwell’s contention that immigration has not only changed Europe but revolutionised it has a topical plausibility. Immigration, he says, and above all Muslim immigration, has planted in the heart of a weak and confused civilisation communities, rapidly growing in number, that have already changed Europe to suit their needs and beliefs. And the chances are, he insists, that in the future we will bend to their will rather than that they will bend to ours.
Rightwing rubbish? Caldwell cannot be so easily dismissed.
Where he is right is in underlining the fact that immigration was encouraged by elites who took a ludicrously short-sighted view of its costs and consequences. The idea was to prop up industries already in decline and, later, to staff industries, such as health and tourism, the full cost of which our societies refused (and continue to refuse) to pay. The manning of underpaid and menial positions could be maintained only by a constant influx of new migrants, since people in established migrant communities either got better jobs or chose, like many in the native white population, to depend on the welfare state and to have no jobs at all. More recently, immigration has been defended as a way of making up for falling birth rates when, as Caldwell points out, it would have to be multiplied an unfeasibly large number of times to have that effect.
This inherently unstable and dysfunctional system was set in motion, in other words, for no good reason. Those who started it off did not foresee how big it would become, nor the mechanisms of family reunion and arranged marriages that would drive it on even when restrictions were belatedly imposed. Most of them did not imagine, says Caldwell, that the newcomers would “retain the habits and cultures of southern villages, clans, marketplaces, and mosques”.
He is right to argue that immigration on the scale that Europe has experienced constitutes a risky experiment to which we need not have submitted ourselves, and of which the final result is not yet clear. He is right that we frequently talk about it in stupid and dishonest ways.
Have to say, a more authentic Balti and enforced hijab newsreaders don’t really offset riots, murder, rape, FGM etc.
They using the moral equivalence scale from Mishal Husain again?
Immigration: ordinary people speak out in it’s favour:
1. I’m a Labour MP. Working class Britons people will not vote for us any more, resentful that we have abandoned them and their interests. The only way we can get elected is by importing new voters from the third world and appeasing them.
2. I’m a Tory MP. I own thousands of acres of farmland – it’s been in my family since the time of William the Conqueror, don’t you know. But labour costs are so high and it is only by exploiting East European immigrants that I can maximise my profits.
3. I’m a globalist, working for a foundation ultimately financed by George Soros, but behind various fronts to disguise the links. I believe in a one world government, in which monopoly capitalists and oligarchs can do as they wish. Immigration is the most important component in breaking down national barriers.
4. I’m a revolutionary. My organisation needs foot soldiers to fight for the revolution. The workers aren’t interested so we recruit among disaffected immigrants. My partner works for the BBC…
5… I am that partner at the BBC, where I’m a senior manager. I have impeccable, left-wing credentials and received the very best education. A generation or two back, my folks were lording it over the natives in the Empire. I sort of feel resentful that lifestyle is no longer possible, but having the natives come to us, so to speak, is a most agreeable alternative. And they do make very good maids and house boys as long as one keeps an eye on them and generally patronises them.
I am a dead white male killed in World War One.
If I had known what the UK would be like in 2017, I would have killed my commanding officers then led a march on Parliament to kill the MPs.
I am another dead white male killed in World War Two.
I am with my dead colleague from the past, the recent treason is unparalelled, one one punishment suffices.
“For God’s sake look after our people”
Robert Falcon Scott, final Antartctic Journal entry.
Most of the politicians are part of the problem, part of the enemy.
Mercilessness is required, to all enemies.
Most of the politicians are part of the problem, part of the enemy.
Mercilessness is required, to all enemies.
TruthSeeker See current crop of politicians, The BBC and Al-Guardian and their subservience to the bloated , corrupt undemocratic European Union for a classic example of that statement !!
Good posts above. Yes, the politicians are a big part of the problem. Along with the BBC and many MSM journalists, they are the enemy of all decent people . Until they all start to suffer personally, there will be no change. Even then …..
The leading lights (and there will be thousands of them) in the entire leftist ‘Cathedral’ will certainly need to suffer personally, if there’s eventually to be justice for treason.
Politicians, NGO heads, Civil Servants, media moguls, business leaders, journalists and liberal luvvies. Take all their wealth, exile them to some hellhole (eg Somalia) – and that’s for the penitent ones. More medieval punishments must lie in wait for the worst offenders!
I see little point in attempts to deal with immigration and shutting the door – or even attempting to correct Britain’s disastrous recent history -until this privileged minority of fools are removed from the discourse.
We’ve been told for decades now that mass immigration is essential to keep our economy healthy, vibrant and competitive. Hmmm… That has always seemed a somewhat limp argument to me. In my simplistic, rather domestic way, I’ve thought about it like this.
We have two houses. In house A there are 10 people living, each with £10 in their pockets. The collective wealth of that property will be £100. In the next house (B) identical in all respects, there are only 5 people. Each householder has £15 in their pockets. The overall wealth of the house is only £75, but each individual is £5 better off. Not only is he better off financially, he has a bit of space. He can actually get to the bathroom, or find an armchair, without having a punch up with his housemates.
Now, most left-wing political spokesmen make sure that they live in house B; while telling the rest of us how diverse, beautiful and beneficial life in house A is.
There is an uncomfortable, unholy alliance between big business and the hard left, both wanting mass, unbridled, completely unrestricted, immigration. For big business it means cheap labour. For the alt left it’s an ideological perversion. As Orwell wrote 60 odd years ago, they deify each and every race, religion and culture above their own. The rest of us are caught in the middle, forced to live the dystopian nightmare they have created for us.
My country is dreadfully overcrowded and no longer culturally cohesive.
I’m still living in house A. The people in house B tell me how lucky I am and sneer at me and call me names if I question the benefits. But they always make damned sure that they live in house B. And for some unfathomable reason the further to the left they are and the more they seem to preach the more spacious their dwellings seem to be.
Have you seen where Billy Bragg and Saint Bob live?
No … and niether have any of those `refugees` they both promised to take in!!
Jeff, great illustration. Thanks. Taking your example and expanding it further: House A requires higher elements of taxpayer-funded social intervention. House B has less inhabitants, earning less than House A but the level and type of work is such that more inhabitants of House B finance the social intervention of House A.
The overall benefit to the village (House A + House B) is rather less than it would at first appear to be.
I think this was one of the explanations of Stephanie Flanders or Robert Peston (sorry, cannot remember which one) to the UK’s Productivity Puzzle.
At first it was immigration is good because it creates multiculturalism .
Britain was boring , said the multiculturalists , and they wanted to see different coloured hues in people’s skin .
The BBC never questioned this , or why importing Eastern Europeans from depressed industrial areas to work in our de- industrialised areas was a Good Thing . Or why if you wanted to see other cultures , in theses days of rapid and cheap international transport , it wasn’t better to spend a little and see these other cultures in their proper setting .
Then it was We Need Immigrants Because Our Population Is Getting Old And The Immigrants Will Pay Our Pensions Via Taxes .
Of course the BBC never questioned how the pensions of the new arrivals were to be payed , unless they were to be deported or culled before they got old , or if we just keep importing people into the country to pay their pensions , and then more people after that to pay the pensions of the ones we bought in to ….. Well , you know the fallacy of that .
Then it was They’re Doing The Jobs Brits Don’t Want To Do .
Another shibboleth not questioned by the BBC . How were the jobs done beforehand ? How can you run an economy putting some people on the dole and then undercut and state subsidise wages with imported labour ?
Other reasons and excuses followed , until the Powers That Be realised the ordinary Joe was seeing through the cant and futility of their announcements .
Now it’s We Don’t Mind People Coming Here If They (Want To) Make a Contribution .
Now at what stage was it deemed acceptable that you could up sticks and move to someone else’s country just so long as you held a job – for a while – and payed some taxes ? What if we don’t need immigrants to come here and make a ” contribution ” .
Hopefully this specious reasoning will be argued with and dismissed and we can get back to a sensible immigration and population control of this country , viz ; we the people decide who comes here , for how long , and what their behaviour should be .
Following on from that, I worked for Inland Revenue – now HMRC. Poles (eg) could earn more and NOT pay income tax.
Consider the current tax-free allowance of £11,500 (make it £12k for ease of this). If a person comes into UK, half-way through the tax year, he can earn £2000/month, for six months, and NOT pay income tax. He then works for six months in the the next financial year, pays the income tax, but then goes home. He then claims the income tax back.
Over the TOTAL 12 month period, that worker has saved £2500 in income tax. I’ve seen it happen.
Hopefully this specious reasoning will be argued with and dismissed and we can get back to a sensible immigration and population control of this country , viz ; we the people decide who comes here , for how long , and what their behaviour should be .
Too late I’m afraid. For a start, reversal of non-integrating immigrants, with a culture that makes it impossible to them to integrate.
The neo-left’s stupidity is matched only by its nihilism. They have absolutely no solutions to the problems that they’ve caused, except to tell everyone else that they just have to live with it. They are also the biggest racist white supremacists on the planet, for they didn’t think the new arrivals had any agenda or agency, no cultures or beliefs that they would defend, and that they would simply embrace European cultures as obviously being better. The EU, and Marxian neo-liberals across the western world, have done more damage to our societies than any so-called ‘far-right’ leaders (many of whom were, of course, on the left) could ever do.
In a nutshell , multiculturalism does not work , its divisive. Simples!
The majority of the British people don’t want an alien culture yet Al Beeb continues to ram it down our throats.
Why ?
taffman In a nutshell , multiculturalism does not work , its divisive. Simples!
But why was it necessary to go full steam ahead on such a dangerous, virtually non-reversible experiment. Do we routinely explode nukes over cities to see what the effects are? Cant we think? Do we have to experiment on such matters as we cant think at all?
Allowing millions of hostile immigrants to the UK and its culture, is in effect using nukes on our own, for the effects are the same.
NCBC
“But why was it necessary to go full steam ahead on such a dangerous, virtually non-reversible experiment.”
Perhaps Mr Blair can answer that one, or even Mrs May? Remember Mr Cameron’s election winning promise of 2 years ago …………..
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-pledges-to-control-and-reduce-immigration
We voted Brexit for sovereignty and control of our borders.
Nobody has been able to tell me why diversity in a people is a good in itself. To say so is to make it so in progressive Britain. It is a nonsense and they know it . It is just a fashion and will pass but in the process probably fatally weaken this country.
I remember at one time the progressive view was that populations should decline and that this was a good thing for the health of the planet. That view is now gone and the same progressives happily look to a continual increase in people in this country. They are insane.
In every sphere the progressive has taken leave of his senses and tried to redefine reality.
Not just immigration but in every facet of our lives from sex to law.
One of the benefits of multiculturalism …………..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39597062
Has anyone been prosecuted for this child abuse in the UK yet ?
Taffman wrote:
“Has anyone been prosecuted for this child abuse in the UK yet ?”
Funny enough with one girl an hour reported for FGM in the UK, the answer is a disgusting no. Its like when islamic rape gangs were first reported, the do gooders closed their eyes and ears to the poor rape victims and their families and used the ‘R’ word in which to silence them. We did see a Muslim doctor charged with the offence in 2015, but the do-gooders protested on mass on his behalf saying he was doing more good than bad, and that he didn’t know it was illegal in the UK..he walked free from court.
FGM trial – the wrong prosecution
Decision to prosecute doctor for FGM ‘left me with no faith in British justice’
Pounce,
The failure of the British Establishment Elite to deal with FGM demonstrates their evil heartlessness. They are just as guilty as the perpetrators. Naturally fully supported by the scum at the BBC. Many girls actually die as a result of FGM. Where are the bodies disposed of in the UK ? I am not aware of any police investigations into this.
Good God , even in a poor African country like Gambia, FGM is illegal and there are prosecutions. Government bodies tour the country trying to stamp the practice out. They seem to be more civilised than the UK. How shameful is that ?
Grant
The BBC holds a completely contradictory position on tribal practices.
A few months ago, the World Service was praising a woman from Malawi who, at considerable personal risk, was campaigning against “hyena men”.These are men who perform ritual mass rape on girls who have just had their first period. In Britain, the BBC is quite happy to turn a blind eye to any tribal taboo or practice, however harmful they might be, as long as it’s not “blacked up” morris men. A Christian praying for someone who is not a christian is an outrage yet nonmuslims are expected to feel no irritation at having their food mumbojumboed over to make it halal. People who do not believe in a sky fairy may think mumbojumboing of any kind is trivial or irrelevant to them, but it is significant when one form of mumbojumbo is allowed to establish itself by one “small” victory after another. This is classic “nudging” at work. Multicultural Britain is really just a retribalised Britain. For example the idea of “community leader” is always being used in the media. These are essentially “village headsmen” who excercise influence and authority outside any British local democratic process.
The manning of underpaid and menial positions could be maintained only by a constant influx of new migrants, since people in established migrant communities either got better jobs or chose, like many in the native white population, to depend on the welfare state and to have no jobs at all.
The Left’s big contradiction.
On the one hand they say immigrants do the menial jobs Brits refuse to do but on the other tell us how they make a net contribution to the economy. By definition, if you are in menial employment you are a net beneficiary of the state as you pay little tax and yet enjoy access to the same services and infrastructure as everyone else.
Yet another challenge the BBC seems incapable of making – in fact, the opposite – you will hear their correspondents time and again throw in the fake news mantra that immigrants are net contributors to the economy.
Because they can.
The research that claimed immigrants are a net economic benefit fitted the narrative and was therefore leapt upon and hyped.
That research doesnt seem robust but no one wants to publicise that.
and even that research was absolutely clear
western european net benefit
eastern european not so much, but even that lumped poles and roma pikeys together
sub-continent net loss
if i remember rightly at one time the total benefit was equivalent a mars bar per head of population. Of course even that never mentioned that some of us were several mars bars worse off, lots of people were a whole lot of mars bars worse off and a few people were millions of mars bars better off either.