A protestor in Rotherham at the weekend (Photo by Andy Barton/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/thomas-fazi-1-15-100x100.png)
Last week, after a demonstration against the housing of refugees in a Knowsley hotel turned violent, many on the Left were quick to denounce the protestors as fascists or racists, and to lay the blame on Suella Braverman for warning of a migrant “invasion”. There were more protests across the UK at the weekend; no doubt a similar response will follow.
It is true that one nationalist group, Patriotic Alternative, promoted the Knowsley protest, and politicians who resort to inflammatory language to distract from their own failings deserve to be called out. But can these angry demonstrations really be blamed on a few bad apples, agitated by politicians and a generalised culture of racism? Or should they be seen as the symptom of a much deeper malaise, which has its roots in the impact of immigration on British working-class communities?
Uneasiness over immigration in the UK has been simmering below the surface for some time. Over the past few years, much has been written about the way in which anti-immigration attitudes among the British softened significantly after the EU referendum, despite the number of immigrants remaining broadly unchanged between 2016 and 2019. This left some baffled: it was the opposite of what they might have expected following the victory of a campaign which had been variously described as fuelled by racism, fascism and xenophobia. But in fact, it simply revealed the liberal elites’ ignorance of the real dynamics driving the Brexit vote.
Of course, the reason many people voted for Brexit was to lower immigration. There were both cultural and economic factors affecting this, the result of the very high and sustained immigration which took place under the Blair, Brown, and Cameron governments. However, it was also about sending a message to the country’s political establishment: citizens had been signalling their desire for stricter border controls at every election, only to be ignored. In this sense, immigration became the main focus of Brexit’s promise of greater popular sovereignty; not because of xenophobia or racism, but because it was where the political void between rulers and ruled had crystallised. It was mainly about accountability and democracy, not race or hatred of foreigners (which explains why the Leave vote had strong support among ethnic minorities as well).
This is why attitudes to immigration relaxed after the referendum: Leavers felt that they now had greater control over immigration. Or so they thought: since Brexit, the Conservatives have ushered in a system that, if anything, is even more liberal than before. As the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory points out, while the new system is more restrictive for EU nationals, who previously enjoyed freedom of movement rights, for the rest of the world “the policy reflects a notable liberalisation”. And we are now beginning to see the effects of this.
According to Home Office figures, there were 2.6 million visas granted in the year ending September 2022. While this represents an 18% decrease compared with 2019, estimates from the Office of National Statistics suggest that total net migration was 504,000 in the year ending June 2022, far higher than the previous record of 330,000. Work-related visas in particular rose to almost 400,000 — 80% higher than before the pandemic in 2019, and the highest number of work visas issued in any 12-month period since the data series began in 2005. Meanwhile, as a result of Brexit, the source of immigration has also begun to change in profound ways: net EU immigration has fallen steadily since 2016, while non-EU immigration has increased — mainly from countries such as India (worker visas are up 90%), the Philippines (93%), Nigeria (399%) and Zimbabwe (1,500%). This means that immigration is becoming more culturally, ethnically and religiously distinctive.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeLow skilled mass immigration is like a business that took out a 60 year loan, at a high interest rate, that was interest only for the first 30 years. The loan initially boosted the business whilst the payments were low but the business failed to grow fast enough before the capital repayments kicked in so is now facing bankruptcy. So what does it do? It takes out another loan, for a higher amount, on the same terms to pay for cost of the previous one and hopes that this time it can grow fast enough to meet the capital payments when they come due again.
Migrant workers are a boost to the economy in the short term, but in the long term, once they start requiring use of the health service and other entitlements the British state will provide them with, these liabilities more than cancel out the small boost to the economy they provide.
Over the next few years thousands of low skilled workers who moved to the country in their 20’s and 30’s will begin to reach the age where they are more likely require medical care or retire. Their contributions to the economy will not meet the cost of these services so what does the government do? It brings in an even higher number of low skilled migrants to pay for the first waves of mass migration they brought in years ago and hopes that this time the economy grows faster.
Unless an economic miracle happens that significantly boosts productivity to meet these future liabilities, we are trapped in a migrant Ponzi scheme, which like all Ponzi schemes, will one day, inevitably collapse.
Excellent analogy!
The trouble is that while they flood the market with cheap low-skilled labour, there is no financial incentive to mechanise further and increase productivity because increasing labour cost is what normally drives productivity growth. So, the Ponzi scheme itself prevents the miracle required.
Mechanise what? Increase the productivity of what? Where are all these factories?
The service economy, of course. Obsessing about factories and making physical widgets is typical in this context of course, but it’s still missing the point: we still have an economy, it’s large, complex and advanced, and it is still capable of being improved through innovative automation.
Luckily, the latest advances in robotics are such that we’re past the point where robots are good only for fixed, repetitive tasks in factories, and are now able to coexist alongside humans in service workspaces. And given the way demographics are changing, it’s not a binary choice between an immigration-fed low-skilled low-paid labour market or an automated high-waged one: the chances are that we’ll need both immigrant labour AND automation to solve the healthcare and adult social care crisis, for instance.
The service economy, of course. Obsessing about factories and making physical widgets is typical in this context of course, but it’s still missing the point: we still have an economy, it’s large, complex and advanced, and it is still capable of being improved through innovative automation.
Luckily, the latest advances in robotics are such that we’re past the point where robots are good only for fixed, repetitive tasks in factories, and are now able to coexist alongside humans in service workspaces. And given the way demographics are changing, it’s not a binary choice between an immigration-fed low-skilled low-paid labour market or an automated high-waged one: the chances are that we’ll need both immigrant labour AND automation to solve the healthcare and adult social care crisis, for instance.
This sounds right in theory but actually there is a desperate need for low skilled labour in this country. What is the sector with a critical shortage of workers? From what I know it’s the care sector that stands out. And it is not generally regarded as high skilled, it certain not highly paid. As far as I know mechanising the care sector is not on the horizon, and when it is it will be very limited.
You have a truth there. The care sector is kept running by these people and they do a good job. One cannot blame them for applying for vacancies. The illegal immigration we see is quite another matter. Many are far worse off than the illegal immigrants in their fancy hotels and doctors appointments twice a week etc. Maybe the anwer for our poor is to go to Europe and come back on one of the boats?
You have a point and we need to understand the origin of such shortage of workers and also analyse the new problems brought by the proposed solution, as underlined by Fazi. Why British couples do not have more than 2 kids? Because women’s careers are affected by pregnancies and the costs of raising children and the need to ‘buy’ time for them is high. Therefore, we bring in more people that drive down wages and increase demand for properties and public services. A growing demand requires more workers and pushes for more immigration. Immigrants bring new ideas and also new conflicts and crimes such as genital mutilations and tribal rule killings. Furthermore, as the will of the people in the receiving countries is constantly ignored, our problems are increasing and faith in liberal democracy is dwindling.
There’s a need right now because British unskilled people simply won’t do the jobs in question – that’s partly why we have 5m “economically inactive” people of working age in the UK. It’s actually ridiculous: we claim to have a low unemployment rate, but if we judged the labour market by the standards Thatcher faced, we’d be looking at at least 4m people out of work. Back in Thatcher’s day it was a scandal that unemployment reached 3m, these days we’re tolerating far worse than that.
That aside, low skilled labour, whether domestic or immigrant, cannot solve the care sector liability anyway. Only automation can solve it: there’s just no way that millions of working age people are going to wipe old people’s bottoms as we get ever healthier and live decades in retirement instead of just years. Care workers are going to remain in jobs, of course, but they’ll increasingly be augmented by AI / robotics. This is a welcome development because the increase in productivity in question will mean that they’ll actually be paid well, but also that the sector as a whole won’t grow so expensive as to bring the rest of the economy to collapse.
You have a truth there. The care sector is kept running by these people and they do a good job. One cannot blame them for applying for vacancies. The illegal immigration we see is quite another matter. Many are far worse off than the illegal immigrants in their fancy hotels and doctors appointments twice a week etc. Maybe the anwer for our poor is to go to Europe and come back on one of the boats?
You have a point and we need to understand the origin of such shortage of workers and also analyse the new problems brought by the proposed solution, as underlined by Fazi. Why British couples do not have more than 2 kids? Because women’s careers are affected by pregnancies and the costs of raising children and the need to ‘buy’ time for them is high. Therefore, we bring in more people that drive down wages and increase demand for properties and public services. A growing demand requires more workers and pushes for more immigration. Immigrants bring new ideas and also new conflicts and crimes such as genital mutilations and tribal rule killings. Furthermore, as the will of the people in the receiving countries is constantly ignored, our problems are increasing and faith in liberal democracy is dwindling.
There’s a need right now because British unskilled people simply won’t do the jobs in question – that’s partly why we have 5m “economically inactive” people of working age in the UK. It’s actually ridiculous: we claim to have a low unemployment rate, but if we judged the labour market by the standards Thatcher faced, we’d be looking at at least 4m people out of work. Back in Thatcher’s day it was a scandal that unemployment reached 3m, these days we’re tolerating far worse than that.
That aside, low skilled labour, whether domestic or immigrant, cannot solve the care sector liability anyway. Only automation can solve it: there’s just no way that millions of working age people are going to wipe old people’s bottoms as we get ever healthier and live decades in retirement instead of just years. Care workers are going to remain in jobs, of course, but they’ll increasingly be augmented by AI / robotics. This is a welcome development because the increase in productivity in question will mean that they’ll actually be paid well, but also that the sector as a whole won’t grow so expensive as to bring the rest of the economy to collapse.
Mechanise what? Increase the productivity of what? Where are all these factories?
This sounds right in theory but actually there is a desperate need for low skilled labour in this country. What is the sector with a critical shortage of workers? From what I know it’s the care sector that stands out. And it is not generally regarded as high skilled, it certain not highly paid. As far as I know mechanising the care sector is not on the horizon, and when it is it will be very limited.
The key is in the term “low skilled.” Your comment is spot on while mass immigration is low skilled.
I thought the whole point of our new immigration system was to ensure those coming in now are high skilled and targeted at the skills we need.
500,000 still seems way too many but if they are all scientists, engineers, IT whiz kids and doctors maybe the ponzi can be reversed.
Does any commenter know enough about our new system to comment? It appears even Unherd can no longer be relied on to provide those kind of crucial details if they get in the way of a left/right editorial line.
A Skilled Worker must have a starting salary of £25,600* or £10.10 an hour.
From 2023 the National Minimum Wage will be £10.42 per hour.
Earning less than the minimum wage doesn’t seem like the man-on-the-street’s definition of a Skilled Worker to me.
*There are a bunch of options for people earning less than £10.10 an hour to qualify – being under 26, having certain degree qualifications or having a Shortage Occupation.
Thanks.
Thanks.
You one of those pushing for more immigration.
A Skilled Worker must have a starting salary of £25,600* or £10.10 an hour.
From 2023 the National Minimum Wage will be £10.42 per hour.
Earning less than the minimum wage doesn’t seem like the man-on-the-street’s definition of a Skilled Worker to me.
*There are a bunch of options for people earning less than £10.10 an hour to qualify – being under 26, having certain degree qualifications or having a Shortage Occupation.
You one of those pushing for more immigration.
You can’t taper a Ponzi scheme.
Great analogy, but sadly too generous.
Essentially it describes a short-term boost, with an overall loss in the long term. But already in the UK, according to the ONS around half our existing population receive more in state services and benefits than they pay in tax. Just to break even requires a household income north of around £40k.
It seems unlikely, then, that migrants overall will be net contributors — even in the short term. Especially considering the huge scale.
When annual net migration is the population of a large city, and even “irregular” migrants would create a new a mid-sized market town every year, the cost side of the equation must go up considerably. There is no way these migrants generate enough to justify entire cities’ worth of new housing and infrastructure.
All of which says nothing of the kinds of cultural impacts we already see playing out in Sweden.
Yes, the metric by which to judge the impact of immigration must be GDP per capita, not GDP per se. GDP per capita peaked in 2007, twelve years before Brexit, and has since fallen by more than ten percent – so the Ponzi is already collapsing.
I was incredulous when I just read your comment, so checked the data – turns out, you are right.
Just as a reference point – average GDP per capita in Sub-Saharan Africa grew by about 17% in the same period.
I was incredulous when I just read your comment, so checked the data – turns out, you are right.
Just as a reference point – average GDP per capita in Sub-Saharan Africa grew by about 17% in the same period.
And how did this start – with the 1948 British Nationality Act brought in by a socialist government. Socialists want a world government and they will do anything to destabilise every country to achieve it. The aims of the Frankfurt School have been fully implemented and it needs now is a single world currency.
The same thing is being planned by the globalists for a different reason. Their reason is to globalise the world and dominate it.
What on earth are you talking about? I don’t think you know yourself.
And that would not be a socialist utopia as much as a liberal one? Same laws and same currency for everybody, free flow of capital and labour without any border constrains, privatised services, and no institution strong enough to enforce sanctions on big corporations.
The same thing is being planned by the globalists for a different reason. Their reason is to globalise the world and dominate it.
What on earth are you talking about? I don’t think you know yourself.
And that would not be a socialist utopia as much as a liberal one? Same laws and same currency for everybody, free flow of capital and labour without any border constrains, privatised services, and no institution strong enough to enforce sanctions on big corporations.
It also needs to be clearly understood that the government long ago started using a model by which immigration inherently increases the GDP and hence, can never have an adverse effect.
Check two examples: Jews immigrating to Ottoman, then British Palestine and Palestinians then Syrians immigrating to Lebanon. The first nurtured three short wars in less than 50 years and a long wave of civil resistance movement, quite often misogynistic and racist, but clearly increased the GDP. The other two provoked one long and devastating civil war and sharp falls of GDP.
Check two examples: Jews immigrating to Ottoman, then British Palestine and Palestinians then Syrians immigrating to Lebanon. The first nurtured three short wars in less than 50 years and a long wave of civil resistance movement, quite often misogynistic and racist, but clearly increased the GDP. The other two provoked one long and devastating civil war and sharp falls of GDP.
This is partly true but ignores an important factor, which is that immigrant unskilled labour is more likely to upskill into higher-earning income levels than native unskilled labour. I’ve been an IT contractor for fifteen years and there are large numbers of European IT people who are now high earners who started at the bottom. I’ve also noticed in the buiding industry that although 20 years ago most Polish builders were unskilled, now they’re just as likely to be skilled plumbers, electricians or small building contractors themselves: they’re earning way above the average and will continue to do so.
Ditto – excellent analogy.
Confirmed by Glyn Williams, former Dir Gen Mig & Borders Group, Home Office (see https://youtu.be/fivAtBLmyWY 19.00-19.42):
”we had 20-25 years of untrammelled free movement and did that do anything to address the chronic deficiencies in the UK economy…? No, if anything that just got worse…If you talk to the CBI they will always say ‘well we are in a bad place at the moment, we just need a bit more immigration, employers can get themselves in a better place and then we will be OK’. They have been saying that for 20 years…and it has never materialised.”
Mass migration is a giant Ponzi scheme run by human traffickers in tandem with Western politicians. And like a Ponzi scheme, it’s also a fraud on Western peoples who have repeatedly voiced their objections both at the voting booth and when polled.
Really good analogy. I recently tried to explain it in similar terms to a “let ’em all in” friend, although I referred to it as a Ponzi scheme instead.
Edit. I hadn’t read your final paragraph when I mentioned Ponzi schemes. Doh!
Absolutely right! I would add though that, IMO, most immigrants aspire to a new/good life and want to work and pay taxes Their contribution goes towards supporting an ever-expanding indigenous non-tax paying cohort who pursue a ‘career’ on benefits and child production – no experience necessary.
Do the single young men hanging round the streets and cafes want to work? I rather doubt it.
Do the single young men hanging round the streets and cafes want to work? I rather doubt it.
Excellent analogy!
The trouble is that while they flood the market with cheap low-skilled labour, there is no financial incentive to mechanise further and increase productivity because increasing labour cost is what normally drives productivity growth. So, the Ponzi scheme itself prevents the miracle required.
The key is in the term “low skilled.” Your comment is spot on while mass immigration is low skilled.
I thought the whole point of our new immigration system was to ensure those coming in now are high skilled and targeted at the skills we need.
500,000 still seems way too many but if they are all scientists, engineers, IT whiz kids and doctors maybe the ponzi can be reversed.
Does any commenter know enough about our new system to comment? It appears even Unherd can no longer be relied on to provide those kind of crucial details if they get in the way of a left/right editorial line.
You can’t taper a Ponzi scheme.
Great analogy, but sadly too generous.
Essentially it describes a short-term boost, with an overall loss in the long term. But already in the UK, according to the ONS around half our existing population receive more in state services and benefits than they pay in tax. Just to break even requires a household income north of around £40k.
It seems unlikely, then, that migrants overall will be net contributors — even in the short term. Especially considering the huge scale.
When annual net migration is the population of a large city, and even “irregular” migrants would create a new a mid-sized market town every year, the cost side of the equation must go up considerably. There is no way these migrants generate enough to justify entire cities’ worth of new housing and infrastructure.
All of which says nothing of the kinds of cultural impacts we already see playing out in Sweden.
Yes, the metric by which to judge the impact of immigration must be GDP per capita, not GDP per se. GDP per capita peaked in 2007, twelve years before Brexit, and has since fallen by more than ten percent – so the Ponzi is already collapsing.
And how did this start – with the 1948 British Nationality Act brought in by a socialist government. Socialists want a world government and they will do anything to destabilise every country to achieve it. The aims of the Frankfurt School have been fully implemented and it needs now is a single world currency.
It also needs to be clearly understood that the government long ago started using a model by which immigration inherently increases the GDP and hence, can never have an adverse effect.
This is partly true but ignores an important factor, which is that immigrant unskilled labour is more likely to upskill into higher-earning income levels than native unskilled labour. I’ve been an IT contractor for fifteen years and there are large numbers of European IT people who are now high earners who started at the bottom. I’ve also noticed in the buiding industry that although 20 years ago most Polish builders were unskilled, now they’re just as likely to be skilled plumbers, electricians or small building contractors themselves: they’re earning way above the average and will continue to do so.
Ditto – excellent analogy.
Confirmed by Glyn Williams, former Dir Gen Mig & Borders Group, Home Office (see https://youtu.be/fivAtBLmyWY 19.00-19.42):
”we had 20-25 years of untrammelled free movement and did that do anything to address the chronic deficiencies in the UK economy…? No, if anything that just got worse…If you talk to the CBI they will always say ‘well we are in a bad place at the moment, we just need a bit more immigration, employers can get themselves in a better place and then we will be OK’. They have been saying that for 20 years…and it has never materialised.”
Mass migration is a giant Ponzi scheme run by human traffickers in tandem with Western politicians. And like a Ponzi scheme, it’s also a fraud on Western peoples who have repeatedly voiced their objections both at the voting booth and when polled.
Really good analogy. I recently tried to explain it in similar terms to a “let ’em all in” friend, although I referred to it as a Ponzi scheme instead.
Edit. I hadn’t read your final paragraph when I mentioned Ponzi schemes. Doh!
Absolutely right! I would add though that, IMO, most immigrants aspire to a new/good life and want to work and pay taxes Their contribution goes towards supporting an ever-expanding indigenous non-tax paying cohort who pursue a ‘career’ on benefits and child production – no experience necessary.
Low skilled mass immigration is like a business that took out a 60 year loan, at a high interest rate, that was interest only for the first 30 years. The loan initially boosted the business whilst the payments were low but the business failed to grow fast enough before the capital repayments kicked in so is now facing bankruptcy. So what does it do? It takes out another loan, for a higher amount, on the same terms to pay for cost of the previous one and hopes that this time it can grow fast enough to meet the capital payments when they come due again.
Migrant workers are a boost to the economy in the short term, but in the long term, once they start requiring use of the health service and other entitlements the British state will provide them with, these liabilities more than cancel out the small boost to the economy they provide.
Over the next few years thousands of low skilled workers who moved to the country in their 20’s and 30’s will begin to reach the age where they are more likely require medical care or retire. Their contributions to the economy will not meet the cost of these services so what does the government do? It brings in an even higher number of low skilled migrants to pay for the first waves of mass migration they brought in years ago and hopes that this time the economy grows faster.
Unless an economic miracle happens that significantly boosts productivity to meet these future liabilities, we are trapped in a migrant Ponzi scheme, which like all Ponzi schemes, will one day, inevitably collapse.
“…We have an obligation to try to welcome as many people as possible who are escaping hellish situations…”
I think that this is an extraordinary and desperately wrong statement. We do not have any such obligation at all. Why should we feel obligated to house people who will not make a go of the society or the country in which they live?
Africa and India are both goldmines and bread baskets potentially. But societally, both are also basket-cases and that has little or nothing to do with Western intervention these days. It is to do with the rotten way their societies are ordered, with their tribalism, corruption, their toxic class-systems and their poisonous religions. And that is not our problem.
The aid that is given doesn’t help. It just creates a culture of dependency and despair. The more you see of “charitable” activity, and the closer you see it – as I have, particularly in Africa, the worse it gets. It is almost colonialism by a different name.
This continent and sub-continent alone contain about 60 times our population and Mr Fazi tells us we have an obligation to house as many of them as we can? What utter nonsense. The kindest thing we can do for them is to leave them alone to resolve their own problems.
The damage done to African nations by draining them of their educated has been incalculable.
It always astonishes me that the progressives and faux socialisits don’t see this. They’ll talk endlessly about equity yet support one of the most neoliberal policies there is.
The educated self-drained. If their nations meant anything to them, they’d have stayed and worked to improve them.
Exactly.
Why would you stay if part of what you earn goes to a head man somewhere along the chain? The corruption is the problem, despots ruling over and ruining the futures of anyone with an intellect and some drive. So you get out. Somehow the citizens need to revolt against the despots and get rule of law established but that’s a pipe dream for most.
Exactly.
Why would you stay if part of what you earn goes to a head man somewhere along the chain? The corruption is the problem, despots ruling over and ruining the futures of anyone with an intellect and some drive. So you get out. Somehow the citizens need to revolt against the despots and get rule of law established but that’s a pipe dream for most.
They came for good jobs. How do you stop that and is that our fault?
But is it not their choice to leave?
It always astonishes me that the progressives and faux socialisits don’t see this. They’ll talk endlessly about equity yet support one of the most neoliberal policies there is.
The educated self-drained. If their nations meant anything to them, they’d have stayed and worked to improve them.
They came for good jobs. How do you stop that and is that our fault?
But is it not their choice to leave?
We are friendly with a number of Nigerian immigrants and they emphasise how desperate reasonably well to do Nigerians are to get out of Nigeria and come to the UK because of its general corruption and lawlessness. On an individual level we can sympathise and relate to their decision but we definitely don’t have an obligation to accept people fleeing from intolerable conditions as suggested by the author.
One of the routes Nigerian’s take is to sign up to university courses and I have seen how this puts immediate pressure on local housing and NHS resources that the Universities that recruit them and benefit from do nothing to contribute to. Individually the Nigerians I know are definitely abler and of better quality than the average UK native and it is a pleasure to know them but in truth the interests of both the UK and Nigeria would be best served by their staying in Nigeria and attempting to reform the system there. Of course it would be hard and perhaps impossible just as the population here in the UK has found it impossible to date to get their politicians to adopt the sensible immigration policies they desire. Corruption and ingrained cultural prejudices is not confined to Nigeria but flourishes among our political, bureaucratic and journalistic elite.
Big influx of Nigerian students where I teach, Jeremy. Yes, I agree; often nice people and I get on well with them. Some, though, are clearly here primarily because they can stay (for a time, at least) after graduation, so they are not always the best/most motivated students (to be fair, there’s always a few bright sparks – pleasure to teach those). There are more Nigerian dependents than there are Nigerian students – they tend to marry young and have larger families so finding housing not always easy. It’s quite striking how many of my international students struggle to adjust to life here. Lots of mental health issues, anxieties about succeeding (hard enough for native students; doubly hard for overseas). I suspect that university chiefs just think about the income from these students; no real regard for their well-being or the impacts of such increases on local populations.
I am afraid you are right about university chiefs only focusing on the income and caring nothing for the effect on their well being and the impacts on the local population.
I was shocked that our local university was entirely indifferent to the housing and welfare needs of a Nigerian woman who had come over with her husband and four young girls to obtain a postgraduate degree so that she ended up in accommodation many miles from the university that had no cooking facilities carpets or beds or any usual amenities and she had to rely on our church for help to obtain these and warm winter clothing. The mental health assistance for university students generally seems to be lacking as I had to secure the services of a private therapist for my son because the university was unable to offer any timely help when he became depressed during covid.
The arrogant indifference of the self-regarding “liberal” elites to the real welfare of the general population relies on the tolerant nature of the population and the fact that no credible alternative party is offering believable solutions. Those with a stake in the country are unlikely to riot and put any of those who fail to implement sensible policies at any personal risk.
Why do you have a right to bring family when you are accepted as a student? it used to be that all immigrants worked to support their life in the UK and to send remittances back to support families. Bringing families is the problem too. Consumes healthcare, housing and welfare.
Not all students can bring families – but, yes, some do bring dependents. Some bring a lot (Jeremy earlier said that one student he knows brought a husband four children over). Because overseas students tend to be younger, they are less of a strain on H&SC services (but a lot of my students have had babies while studying – it’s often the cause of them deferring for a time – so they do use maternity services).
Not all students can bring families – but, yes, some do bring dependents. Some bring a lot (Jeremy earlier said that one student he knows brought a husband four children over). Because overseas students tend to be younger, they are less of a strain on H&SC services (but a lot of my students have had babies while studying – it’s often the cause of them deferring for a time – so they do use maternity services).
I am afraid you are right about university chiefs only focusing on the income and caring nothing for the effect on their well being and the impacts on the local population.
I was shocked that our local university was entirely indifferent to the housing and welfare needs of a Nigerian woman who had come over with her husband and four young girls to obtain a postgraduate degree so that she ended up in accommodation many miles from the university that had no cooking facilities carpets or beds or any usual amenities and she had to rely on our church for help to obtain these and warm winter clothing. The mental health assistance for university students generally seems to be lacking as I had to secure the services of a private therapist for my son because the university was unable to offer any timely help when he became depressed during covid.
The arrogant indifference of the self-regarding “liberal” elites to the real welfare of the general population relies on the tolerant nature of the population and the fact that no credible alternative party is offering believable solutions. Those with a stake in the country are unlikely to riot and put any of those who fail to implement sensible policies at any personal risk.
Why do you have a right to bring family when you are accepted as a student? it used to be that all immigrants worked to support their life in the UK and to send remittances back to support families. Bringing families is the problem too. Consumes healthcare, housing and welfare.
Big influx of Nigerian students where I teach, Jeremy. Yes, I agree; often nice people and I get on well with them. Some, though, are clearly here primarily because they can stay (for a time, at least) after graduation, so they are not always the best/most motivated students (to be fair, there’s always a few bright sparks – pleasure to teach those). There are more Nigerian dependents than there are Nigerian students – they tend to marry young and have larger families so finding housing not always easy. It’s quite striking how many of my international students struggle to adjust to life here. Lots of mental health issues, anxieties about succeeding (hard enough for native students; doubly hard for overseas). I suspect that university chiefs just think about the income from these students; no real regard for their well-being or the impacts of such increases on local populations.
Or help them from here as many are doing through charities. I think though that those who flee persecution are a different case. These are being ovelooked because of the much greater mass of economic refugees I fear. With regard to their greatly disorganised societies I fear we are starting to show the same symptons and it is growing worse.
Yet we are responsible in at least two ways. Western medicine drove demographic growth and contributed to the overexploitation of natural resources. Besides that, loans to developing countries at usury rates are another Ponzi scheme as much as the mortgages to Western residents.
Having said that, more immigration to the West will do nothing to solve any of these problems.
With respect, this is manifestly incorrect- India is a nation, Africa is not, and India is not only on its way to becoming the world’s largest economy, Indian emigrants, especially in Britain and the US are the most succesful wealth creators, as well as excelling in every field that they choose to enter!
I took him to mean refugees, who meet that criteria, not economic migrants.
The damage done to African nations by draining them of their educated has been incalculable.
We are friendly with a number of Nigerian immigrants and they emphasise how desperate reasonably well to do Nigerians are to get out of Nigeria and come to the UK because of its general corruption and lawlessness. On an individual level we can sympathise and relate to their decision but we definitely don’t have an obligation to accept people fleeing from intolerable conditions as suggested by the author.
One of the routes Nigerian’s take is to sign up to university courses and I have seen how this puts immediate pressure on local housing and NHS resources that the Universities that recruit them and benefit from do nothing to contribute to. Individually the Nigerians I know are definitely abler and of better quality than the average UK native and it is a pleasure to know them but in truth the interests of both the UK and Nigeria would be best served by their staying in Nigeria and attempting to reform the system there. Of course it would be hard and perhaps impossible just as the population here in the UK has found it impossible to date to get their politicians to adopt the sensible immigration policies they desire. Corruption and ingrained cultural prejudices is not confined to Nigeria but flourishes among our political, bureaucratic and journalistic elite.
Or help them from here as many are doing through charities. I think though that those who flee persecution are a different case. These are being ovelooked because of the much greater mass of economic refugees I fear. With regard to their greatly disorganised societies I fear we are starting to show the same symptons and it is growing worse.
Yet we are responsible in at least two ways. Western medicine drove demographic growth and contributed to the overexploitation of natural resources. Besides that, loans to developing countries at usury rates are another Ponzi scheme as much as the mortgages to Western residents.
Having said that, more immigration to the West will do nothing to solve any of these problems.
With respect, this is manifestly incorrect- India is a nation, Africa is not, and India is not only on its way to becoming the world’s largest economy, Indian emigrants, especially in Britain and the US are the most succesful wealth creators, as well as excelling in every field that they choose to enter!
I took him to mean refugees, who meet that criteria, not economic migrants.
“…We have an obligation to try to welcome as many people as possible who are escaping hellish situations…”
I think that this is an extraordinary and desperately wrong statement. We do not have any such obligation at all. Why should we feel obligated to house people who will not make a go of the society or the country in which they live?
Africa and India are both goldmines and bread baskets potentially. But societally, both are also basket-cases and that has little or nothing to do with Western intervention these days. It is to do with the rotten way their societies are ordered, with their tribalism, corruption, their toxic class-systems and their poisonous religions. And that is not our problem.
The aid that is given doesn’t help. It just creates a culture of dependency and despair. The more you see of “charitable” activity, and the closer you see it – as I have, particularly in Africa, the worse it gets. It is almost colonialism by a different name.
This continent and sub-continent alone contain about 60 times our population and Mr Fazi tells us we have an obligation to house as many of them as we can? What utter nonsense. The kindest thing we can do for them is to leave them alone to resolve their own problems.
Thanks, Thomas, for your analysis. For me, the reasons for the recent anti-migrant protests can be summed up by simply referring to the idea of fairness. It is not fair that complete strangers cross vast geographic distances to strong arm their way into this country. It’s not fair that migrants are housed in hotels and given three meals a day when people who have lived here their entire lives are sleeping on the streets. It’s not fair that undocumented arrivals get to leapfrog over locals when it comes to allocation of scarce resources. Above all, it’s monumentally unfair that the impacts of mass and/or irregular migration are experienced by people who have no say in the matter and their valid concerns are airily dismissed by the sneering classes (whose lives are untouched by mass migration). I am amazed that there haven’t been more protests, to be honest. All things considered, we’ve been remarkably (stupidly) tolerant.
Very true. Cabinet politicians for decades have paid lip service to this but do nothing.
It’s the same resentment of mass Immigration here in the US for the same reasons.
Very true. Cabinet politicians for decades have paid lip service to this but do nothing.
It’s the same resentment of mass Immigration here in the US for the same reasons.
Thanks, Thomas, for your analysis. For me, the reasons for the recent anti-migrant protests can be summed up by simply referring to the idea of fairness. It is not fair that complete strangers cross vast geographic distances to strong arm their way into this country. It’s not fair that migrants are housed in hotels and given three meals a day when people who have lived here their entire lives are sleeping on the streets. It’s not fair that undocumented arrivals get to leapfrog over locals when it comes to allocation of scarce resources. Above all, it’s monumentally unfair that the impacts of mass and/or irregular migration are experienced by people who have no say in the matter and their valid concerns are airily dismissed by the sneering classes (whose lives are untouched by mass migration). I am amazed that there haven’t been more protests, to be honest. All things considered, we’ve been remarkably (stupidly) tolerant.
I could not even read this silliness…..
What is a woman? Come on – every one knows – no need for all this dancing around the issue. Patriots hate their nation being destroyed. It is simple.
What is so amazing to me is how sheep like the British are that you tell them to accept their doom or you will call them Far Right – and they all hang their head and meekly amble off.
People don’t accept their doom because of being called Far Right. They accept their doom because ALL politicians tell them to do so. ALL elected politicians say nothing or approve of immigration.
The politicians do not reflect the opinions of the voters. We do not have a democracy.
In a democracy people vote for parties espousing some of the policies they desire but politicians in the UK have consistently over promised and not only under delivered but delivered exactly the opposite to what they have promised.
The problem to me is that the political ‘class’ is way, way above the average person in education, drive, debating, acting, posing, assimilating information, etc.
The average person has to defer to the political class in everything. In return, the politicians have to feed the voters with tidbits of do-gooding. Very much like a foodbank where people donate cheap and nasty things that they themselves wouldn’t eat.
No they are not! Just look at the likes of Shapps ?
Excellent remark! We need intelligent educated immigration to provide our future political leaders. Labour Party please note as well
Like Kemi Badenoch, you mean?
Like Kemi Badenoch, you mean?
Excellent remark! We need intelligent educated immigration to provide our future political leaders. Labour Party please note as well
No they are not! Just look at the likes of Shapps ?
And still doing it. At least my one is.
The problem to me is that the political ‘class’ is way, way above the average person in education, drive, debating, acting, posing, assimilating information, etc.
The average person has to defer to the political class in everything. In return, the politicians have to feed the voters with tidbits of do-gooding. Very much like a foodbank where people donate cheap and nasty things that they themselves wouldn’t eat.
And still doing it. At least my one is.
I fear many of them have jettisoned the reasonable view of the people and prefer only their own views. We just have to lump it for the time being. Both the top two parties are letting us down. Time for a revolution in politics.
In a democracy people vote for parties espousing some of the policies they desire but politicians in the UK have consistently over promised and not only under delivered but delivered exactly the opposite to what they have promised.
I fear many of them have jettisoned the reasonable view of the people and prefer only their own views. We just have to lump it for the time being. Both the top two parties are letting us down. Time for a revolution in politics.
The essayist referred to grooming gangs and their ‘abuse’ of young girls. The groomers weren’t shouting nasty names at the girls or pulling their hair. They were raping them.
People don’t accept their doom because of being called Far Right. They accept their doom because ALL politicians tell them to do so. ALL elected politicians say nothing or approve of immigration.
The politicians do not reflect the opinions of the voters. We do not have a democracy.
The essayist referred to grooming gangs and their ‘abuse’ of young girls. The groomers weren’t shouting nasty names at the girls or pulling their hair. They were raping them.
I could not even read this silliness…..
What is a woman? Come on – every one knows – no need for all this dancing around the issue. Patriots hate their nation being destroyed. It is simple.
What is so amazing to me is how sheep like the British are that you tell them to accept their doom or you will call them Far Right – and they all hang their head and meekly amble off.
Mass immigration makes rich people richer by making poor people poorer. It compresses wages, pushes up house prices and rents and degrades public services, destroying the social contract. One day, perhaps soon, the ‘progressives’ and neo-liberals who have promoted these policies will pay a high price for their greed and hypocrisy.
“Aux armes, citoyens
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons!”
What happened to the last two lines of the chorus?
For the sake of brevity I left them out!
Nothing to do with shying away from references to “un sang impur”?
Well yes actually, too much controversy for one day, if you get my drift?
Well yes actually, too much controversy for one day, if you get my drift?
Nothing to do with shying away from references to “un sang impur”?
They are implied. You can call it a dog whistle if you wish to be unkind but dog whistles do manifest the rhetorical virtue of brevity: little is said but much is suggested.
For the sake of brevity I left them out!
They are implied. You can call it a dog whistle if you wish to be unkind but dog whistles do manifest the rhetorical virtue of brevity: little is said but much is suggested.
What happened to the last two lines of the chorus?
“Aux armes, citoyens
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons!”
Mass immigration makes rich people richer by making poor people poorer. It compresses wages, pushes up house prices and rents and degrades public services, destroying the social contract. One day, perhaps soon, the ‘progressives’ and neo-liberals who have promoted these policies will pay a high price for their greed and hypocrisy.
“And crucially, a disproportionate number of asylum seekers are being housed in some of the poorest areas of the country, with local councils and residents having no say in the matter.”
Shocker. The govt’s response is not only authoritarian, but the worst possible solution as well.
Look – your Government hates you and they know the poor places will not be able to resist.
Basically the Government is like some beast who beats their family – but the wife and kids have no where else to go, so they have to stay and take their beatings. That is what it is to be British now days.
Not just British. French, German, American…
And have Labour councillors who won’t resist on principle and despise the working class anyway.
Not just British. French, German, American…
And have Labour councillors who won’t resist on principle and despise the working class anyway.
It is the girls in our poorest areas who also pay the heftiest of prices. It isn’t the daughters, nieces, sisters and granddaughters of middle class lefties who are being groomed and abused, it is children in neighbourhoods like my own.
This has been a problem for decades now, the video that sparked the initial protest documented a situation eerily similar to one I experienced as a 17 year old near my college. Random man with poor English approached me and straight up asked for sex, no preamble, and I swore at him and told him rather rudely not to talk to any woman like that.
My friend’s daughter and her best friend, both 14 at the time and in their school uniforms no less, reported a man running a local shop to the police for trying to get them inside his flat with the promise of cigarettes and alcohol, police interviewed them but did nothing. It was nearly two years later that he was finally charged and found guilty of multiple sex attacks on other girls in their town. He’s not allowed to be in the shop by himself now, but he only got a painfully short sentence for wrecking the lives of girls in a deprived area.
Another friend’s sister, was groomed and fell under the control of an adult man when she was barely 13 years old, the police did nothing, other than threaten to arrest their father for threatening to beat the grown adult preying on his teenage daughter. That abuser is still in the community, never been charged, in spite of him having done this to multiple girls. My friend’s sister eventually got away, but she now struggles with the knowledge that she was vulnerable and should have been protected by authorities.
This makes me physically sick. Knowing that police deliberately turned a blind eye to the decades of abuse in Rotherham should have set the entire country on fire. Why has it not? Why are we all so complacent?
Unbelievably it is still happening Allison in many big cities by the same type of people. Why can’t we export these people back to where they came from?
Me too. The father should have beaten the abuser to a pulp. No jury would have convicted him.
I highly doubt that they would have allowed it to be a jury trial, if he had done so, and no doubt the punishment the judges would dole out to such a father, the sole breadwinner of his household with a wife too sick to work and a then three year old daughter who also desperately needed him to be there, would have been far more severe than any punishment given to the sexual predators involved.
That’s one of the other real tragedies about this situation, that everyone realises but few will voice, that daring to usurp the state’s power will always be seen as a more heinous offence than abusing children.
I’ve witnessed it with another friend. His daughter has permanent brain damage because she was attacked as a toddler by her mother’s then boyfriend. The boyfriend had his sentenced reduced by the judge because he had been beaten on multiple occasions by members of the community who knew what he’d done to this baby whilst the case was awaiting trial.
But now you’re talking about misogyny and the forever abuse of women which happens all over the world.
But now you’re talking about misogyny and the forever abuse of women which happens all over the world.
The current justice system bears no resemblance to the traditional one you remember. Anyone who is perceived to have as taken the law into their own hands is especially harshly punished. The rot has been going on for a long time. It will take root and branch reform to recover.
I highly doubt that they would have allowed it to be a jury trial, if he had done so, and no doubt the punishment the judges would dole out to such a father, the sole breadwinner of his household with a wife too sick to work and a then three year old daughter who also desperately needed him to be there, would have been far more severe than any punishment given to the sexual predators involved.
That’s one of the other real tragedies about this situation, that everyone realises but few will voice, that daring to usurp the state’s power will always be seen as a more heinous offence than abusing children.
I’ve witnessed it with another friend. His daughter has permanent brain damage because she was attacked as a toddler by her mother’s then boyfriend. The boyfriend had his sentenced reduced by the judge because he had been beaten on multiple occasions by members of the community who knew what he’d done to this baby whilst the case was awaiting trial.
The current justice system bears no resemblance to the traditional one you remember. Anyone who is perceived to have as taken the law into their own hands is especially harshly punished. The rot has been going on for a long time. It will take root and branch reform to recover.
Unbelievably it is still happening Allison in many big cities by the same type of people. Why can’t we export these people back to where they came from?
Me too. The father should have beaten the abuser to a pulp. No jury would have convicted him.
This is one of the biggest injustices in our nation that nothing has been done about for decades because of the fear of Islam and the fear of being called racist. Justice should overlook Islam and being called racist. This is one of the biggest shows of cowardice by councils and governments that I know in the country and the problem persists in far more big cities than just Rotherham where the Labour council just ignored it and still do.
Actually, the main fear preventing action being taken to curtail the grooming gangs in many cities has been the fear authorities have of being called “Islamophobic” a more damaging label than “racist”.
Sticking phobic on the end of a word shuts up any reasonable criticism.
Sticking phobic on the end of a word shuts up any reasonable criticism.
And exists in tthe US.
Actually, the main fear preventing action being taken to curtail the grooming gangs in many cities has been the fear authorities have of being called “Islamophobic” a more damaging label than “racist”.
And exists in tthe US.
If you are for real I will eat my hat.
Would you like a full set of cutlery to assist you in that task?
You are free to live in your fantasy land of course, and I highly doubt that anything I could offer would suffice as proof, as even if I linked in the actual media reports, you’d claim I didn’t know the people involved, and I’m not going to provide sufficient information for them or I to be doxxed.
Just a knife and fork, maybe some seasoning. I don’t think I need them though.
What would you consider appropriate levels of evidence for your to start eating?
Sounds like a very silly game, inappropriate for this kind of place. I’ll take what you say at face value for now, but with a big pinch of that seasoning please.
Sounds like a very silly game, inappropriate for this kind of place. I’ll take what you say at face value for now, but with a big pinch of that seasoning please.
What would you consider appropriate levels of evidence for your to start eating?
Just a knife and fork, maybe some seasoning. I don’t think I need them though.
Would you like a full set of cutlery to assist you in that task?
You are free to live in your fantasy land of course, and I highly doubt that anything I could offer would suffice as proof, as even if I linked in the actual media reports, you’d claim I didn’t know the people involved, and I’m not going to provide sufficient information for them or I to be doxxed.
This makes me physically sick. Knowing that police deliberately turned a blind eye to the decades of abuse in Rotherham should have set the entire country on fire. Why has it not? Why are we all so complacent?
This is one of the biggest injustices in our nation that nothing has been done about for decades because of the fear of Islam and the fear of being called racist. Justice should overlook Islam and being called racist. This is one of the biggest shows of cowardice by councils and governments that I know in the country and the problem persists in far more big cities than just Rotherham where the Labour council just ignored it and still do.
If you are for real I will eat my hat.
Look – your Government hates you and they know the poor places will not be able to resist.
Basically the Government is like some beast who beats their family – but the wife and kids have no where else to go, so they have to stay and take their beatings. That is what it is to be British now days.
It is the girls in our poorest areas who also pay the heftiest of prices. It isn’t the daughters, nieces, sisters and granddaughters of middle class lefties who are being groomed and abused, it is children in neighbourhoods like my own.
This has been a problem for decades now, the video that sparked the initial protest documented a situation eerily similar to one I experienced as a 17 year old near my college. Random man with poor English approached me and straight up asked for sex, no preamble, and I swore at him and told him rather rudely not to talk to any woman like that.
My friend’s daughter and her best friend, both 14 at the time and in their school uniforms no less, reported a man running a local shop to the police for trying to get them inside his flat with the promise of cigarettes and alcohol, police interviewed them but did nothing. It was nearly two years later that he was finally charged and found guilty of multiple sex attacks on other girls in their town. He’s not allowed to be in the shop by himself now, but he only got a painfully short sentence for wrecking the lives of girls in a deprived area.
Another friend’s sister, was groomed and fell under the control of an adult man when she was barely 13 years old, the police did nothing, other than threaten to arrest their father for threatening to beat the grown adult preying on his teenage daughter. That abuser is still in the community, never been charged, in spite of him having done this to multiple girls. My friend’s sister eventually got away, but she now struggles with the knowledge that she was vulnerable and should have been protected by authorities.
“And crucially, a disproportionate number of asylum seekers are being housed in some of the poorest areas of the country, with local councils and residents having no say in the matter.”
Shocker. The govt’s response is not only authoritarian, but the worst possible solution as well.
The amount of talking out of both sides of the mouth and paying homage to progressive shibboleth in this essay is both disturbing and pathetic. Is the author really that terrified of looking racist?
Yes
Yes
The amount of talking out of both sides of the mouth and paying homage to progressive shibboleth in this essay is both disturbing and pathetic. Is the author really that terrified of looking racist?
Grooming gangs bad, brain surgeons good. Why are recent Governments unwilling to grasp the quality of immigration?
Grooming gangs bad, brain surgeons good. Why are recent Governments unwilling to grasp the quality of immigration?
We have all been sold down the river by the puppet masters. Our democracy is no longer such – meet the new boss; same as the old boss. In the next election, the sheep will trot into their usual left and right pens. The future is frightening.
This sheep won’t. Enough is enough.
This sheep won’t. Enough is enough.
We have all been sold down the river by the puppet masters. Our democracy is no longer such – meet the new boss; same as the old boss. In the next election, the sheep will trot into their usual left and right pens. The future is frightening.
Why pray are there never any articles about the lack of white people in politics, the media, TV advertisements etc in any African or indeed Asian countries? Why do we never read about anti white/ Jewish/Christian persecution, and indeed basic human and democratic rights in other nations? Where are the white/ European ” immigrant communities” in these countries who are given special protective treatment? The answer? There aren’t any? Why not?
Wrong religion probably. Christians are always persecuted in Islamic countries and sometimes in Hindu countries.
Wow you’ve been in the high moral western horse shop. Isn’t Christianity a western religion though? And didn’t we just bomb the shit out of a load of Muslim countries? Didn’t we from Britain basically invade India?
We are happily letting Pakistan collapse at the moment because we bought all their LNG, did you see that in news? I don’t expect so.
That’s because religion and “faith” is so divisive.
Wow you’ve been in the high moral western horse shop. Isn’t Christianity a western religion though? And didn’t we just bomb the shit out of a load of Muslim countries? Didn’t we from Britain basically invade India?
We are happily letting Pakistan collapse at the moment because we bought all their LNG, did you see that in news? I don’t expect so.
That’s because religion and “faith” is so divisive.
They don’t need it.
Wrong religion probably. Christians are always persecuted in Islamic countries and sometimes in Hindu countries.
They don’t need it.
Why pray are there never any articles about the lack of white people in politics, the media, TV advertisements etc in any African or indeed Asian countries? Why do we never read about anti white/ Jewish/Christian persecution, and indeed basic human and democratic rights in other nations? Where are the white/ European ” immigrant communities” in these countries who are given special protective treatment? The answer? There aren’t any? Why not?
It is obvious. The basis of British culture is being destroyed by our politicians. We cannot say anything about Islam but anything can be said about Christianity.
All religion is oppressive. That’s what it’s all about.
All religion is oppressive. That’s what it’s all about.
It is obvious. The basis of British culture is being destroyed by our politicians. We cannot say anything about Islam but anything can be said about Christianity.
Every person in the UK uses the NHS and public services(Schools, Police, Etc ) . Public spending on services divided by the number of persons works out at over £11,500.
So importing anyone paying less tax than £11,500 will mean they are not paying for their services. The idea that we benefit from low wage (or in the case of families -no wage) immigration is economic nonsense. It makes the UK poorer.
Among certain ethnic groups in the UK it is deemed inappropriate for women to work outside the home: e.g. 68% of British Muslim women have not worked, nor have any intention of doing so, according to a poll a few years ago. Hence, while using the full range of social services, they do not pay for them through taxes. Would this behaviour be tolerated in their countries of origin by indigenous British immigrants? Of course not. Only Britain and other western countries are “racist” for resisting.it.
Of course, British ‘housewives’ do the same and that should not be tolerated either.
Every adult under 66 should either work and pay National Insurance or another adult should pay it on their behalf along with their own.
What? No mention of pink?
What? No mention of pink?
I’ve travelled widely in the Islamic world and it is quite wrong to equate “working outside the home” with “working”. Most women work, mostly in cash-paid piece-work making tourist souvenirs, preparation of agricultural produce for sale, garment production and the like.
Interesting point. Although home based piece-work exists in the UK, it doesn’t make a significant economic contribution, especially as what there is, is more typically in the black economy and avoids the tax system.
Are we back to “women’s work”is not work?
Interesting point. Although home based piece-work exists in the UK, it doesn’t make a significant economic contribution, especially as what there is, is more typically in the black economy and avoids the tax system.
Are we back to “women’s work”is not work?
Of course, British ‘housewives’ do the same and that should not be tolerated either.
Every adult under 66 should either work and pay National Insurance or another adult should pay it on their behalf along with their own.
I’ve travelled widely in the Islamic world and it is quite wrong to equate “working outside the home” with “working”. Most women work, mostly in cash-paid piece-work making tourist souvenirs, preparation of agricultural produce for sale, garment production and the like.
Among certain ethnic groups in the UK it is deemed inappropriate for women to work outside the home: e.g. 68% of British Muslim women have not worked, nor have any intention of doing so, according to a poll a few years ago. Hence, while using the full range of social services, they do not pay for them through taxes. Would this behaviour be tolerated in their countries of origin by indigenous British immigrants? Of course not. Only Britain and other western countries are “racist” for resisting.it.
Every person in the UK uses the NHS and public services(Schools, Police, Etc ) . Public spending on services divided by the number of persons works out at over £11,500.
So importing anyone paying less tax than £11,500 will mean they are not paying for their services. The idea that we benefit from low wage (or in the case of families -no wage) immigration is economic nonsense. It makes the UK poorer.
Articles like this ( Good and its a shame they are not more widely published) always make me think about “racism” and the way the word has almost lost its meaning and ceased to be useful in most conversations. I am a right leaning middle aged white man, so perhaps that makes me automatically a “racist” in the eyes of many…..but from my own personal perspective, I would describe Racism as the kind of blind, bigoted, hatred, fear and misunderstanding of foreign people, in particular those of a darker skin colour, based purely on their appearance. The kind of racism we see or saw in the deep south or south africa a generation or so ago……Thats not me and is very far from my personal values. I judge people on how I find them and have many black, muslim and foreign friends and aquaintances…..Today it is used to describe anyone who disagrees with any policy, legislation or groupthink that involves people of any difference to yourself. Which is kind of crazy. If that makes me a racist, then great, who cares? I am happy to be a racist. However, what I dont want to see is the loss of all my home countries customs, values and way of life, by uncontrolled immigration, which is un deniably and unarguably, what is happening now.Why is it wrong or “Racist” of me not to want that? I happen to think that many of these groups cultural habits, customs and way of life are not good, right or be elevated to the norm in our society ( womens rights, attitudes to homosexuality, religeous fundamentalism, family values, etc etc etc) . Why is this wrong or racist? Not to mention the cost, which we simply cannot afford and the cynical deciet and incompetence of the Government presiding over the whole mess…..Increased immigration simply sows division, distrust and more entrenched views among the people who would otherwise quite happily accept a limited, controlled number of arrivals and did not fear their way of life being taken over…….
It is quite, quite wrong to say that “racism” has lost any use in conversation. A sizeable segment of the working and lower to mid-middle classes are now so habituated to automatically closing down any attempt to raise the subject by simply murmuring “racist” in a sullen tone of self-righteous offence, that it has acquired great power.
absolutely NOT working classes! it is a middle class bourgeois disease
absolutely NOT working classes! it is a middle class bourgeois disease
It is quite, quite wrong to say that “racism” has lost any use in conversation. A sizeable segment of the working and lower to mid-middle classes are now so habituated to automatically closing down any attempt to raise the subject by simply murmuring “racist” in a sullen tone of self-righteous offence, that it has acquired great power.
Articles like this ( Good and its a shame they are not more widely published) always make me think about “racism” and the way the word has almost lost its meaning and ceased to be useful in most conversations. I am a right leaning middle aged white man, so perhaps that makes me automatically a “racist” in the eyes of many…..but from my own personal perspective, I would describe Racism as the kind of blind, bigoted, hatred, fear and misunderstanding of foreign people, in particular those of a darker skin colour, based purely on their appearance. The kind of racism we see or saw in the deep south or south africa a generation or so ago……Thats not me and is very far from my personal values. I judge people on how I find them and have many black, muslim and foreign friends and aquaintances…..Today it is used to describe anyone who disagrees with any policy, legislation or groupthink that involves people of any difference to yourself. Which is kind of crazy. If that makes me a racist, then great, who cares? I am happy to be a racist. However, what I dont want to see is the loss of all my home countries customs, values and way of life, by uncontrolled immigration, which is un deniably and unarguably, what is happening now.Why is it wrong or “Racist” of me not to want that? I happen to think that many of these groups cultural habits, customs and way of life are not good, right or be elevated to the norm in our society ( womens rights, attitudes to homosexuality, religeous fundamentalism, family values, etc etc etc) . Why is this wrong or racist? Not to mention the cost, which we simply cannot afford and the cynical deciet and incompetence of the Government presiding over the whole mess…..Increased immigration simply sows division, distrust and more entrenched views among the people who would otherwise quite happily accept a limited, controlled number of arrivals and did not fear their way of life being taken over…….
I think its wrong for any population to have to justify their opposition to mass immigration and by corollary their own ethnic and cultural disinheritance. It is enough to say, I believe in the self determination of my own people. It need not be too complicated.
The Heritage Site | Adam McDermont | Substack
I think its wrong for any population to have to justify their opposition to mass immigration and by corollary their own ethnic and cultural disinheritance. It is enough to say, I believe in the self determination of my own people. It need not be too complicated.
The Heritage Site | Adam McDermont | Substack
Why is nationalism, like patriotism, such a pejorative? And why is it only applied to Western nations? Wanting to control immigration and be certain that those entering one’s country do so with genuine desire to become a true citizen is deemed racist (what isn’t, these days?). Who made that stupid decision, and why is it tolerated? Why are the same standards not expected of, say, Japan? Or Saudi Arabia?
As I’ve said here before, my husband and his family are immigrants to the US. They came here legally, followed all the rules (which included obtaining green cards, sponsors, and jobs), and became naturalized after a lot of hard work. You wouldn’t find people who love their adopted home more than they, or more deserving of the fruits they worked so hard to earn.
That this continues to be an “issue” is actually planned obsolescence by the group of bureaucrats who run everything but don’t have to live with the consequences of their idiocy. Isn’t it high time we change that?
Why is nationalism, like patriotism, such a pejorative? And why is it only applied to Western nations? Wanting to control immigration and be certain that those entering one’s country do so with genuine desire to become a true citizen is deemed racist (what isn’t, these days?). Who made that stupid decision, and why is it tolerated? Why are the same standards not expected of, say, Japan? Or Saudi Arabia?
As I’ve said here before, my husband and his family are immigrants to the US. They came here legally, followed all the rules (which included obtaining green cards, sponsors, and jobs), and became naturalized after a lot of hard work. You wouldn’t find people who love their adopted home more than they, or more deserving of the fruits they worked so hard to earn.
That this continues to be an “issue” is actually planned obsolescence by the group of bureaucrats who run everything but don’t have to live with the consequences of their idiocy. Isn’t it high time we change that?
It’s kind of incredible to me that pieces like this are written at all.
I know the framing (“Are these protests racist?”) is thanks to incessant political propaganda going back decades. But still..
There’s a complete incomprehension of the deep human value of feeling at home with your neighbours, and sharing a common tradition going back hundreds of years. And that this is completely *natural*, compared with having thousands of completely alien foreigners who don’t care about you dumped on your doorstep.
The sad thing is that Unherd feels it has to genuflect to the propaganda in order to get across a completely obvious point.
It’s kind of incredible to me that pieces like this are written at all.
I know the framing (“Are these protests racist?”) is thanks to incessant political propaganda going back decades. But still..
There’s a complete incomprehension of the deep human value of feeling at home with your neighbours, and sharing a common tradition going back hundreds of years. And that this is completely *natural*, compared with having thousands of completely alien foreigners who don’t care about you dumped on your doorstep.
The sad thing is that Unherd feels it has to genuflect to the propaganda in order to get across a completely obvious point.
A well-argued article. At the time of the EU referendum, I thought that people voting Leave in order to control immigration were extremely naive. As Johnson actually proudly made clear, Britain would simply replace one type of mass immigration – from Europe – with another, mainly from Africa and South Asia. And support for Leave amongst ethnic minority communities was heavily influenced by this: why should some random Pole, say, have freer entry into the country than my cousin from Pakistan? As the article points out – and this is virtually unsayable nowadays- the switch to more non-European immigration has indeed created problems with regard to the assimilation of newcomers and social cohesion. The latter things matter if we are to have a society rather than people who simply share a piece of land. And the points made by commenters here about the Ponzi-scheme and short-term nature of mass immigration ‘benefits’ are well made. Trouble ahead!
I don’t know that they WERE naive. Ever increasing mass immigration from the Third World was ALREADY in full swing as CINO/LINO (Conservative In Name Only / Labour In Name Only) policy. It was ALSO established policy within the EU.
Leaving the EU was an opportunity which would NEVER, EVER come again. Voters anger was at such a pitch that ANY target would be lashed out at.
Camerons great mistake was thinking that the voters could be reasoned with or frightened with paper tigers. You could see the naked fear in Westminster, where no MP dare vote for the abject surrender they so ardently desired, with the EU openly gloating (prematurely as it would transpire) at their presumed victory.
That was certainly why some people were skeptical of making a Leave vote, they felt that it was going to be used as a way to do the opposite of many of the things Leave supporters wanted. So more migration from other parts of the world which were more culturally different, increasing economic libertarianism to the detriment of local workers, and so on.And it’s difficult to say those peopel were wrong.
I remember there were some who hoped that European migration might be replaced by people coming from Commonwealth countries, which has happened to some extent, but it’s not clear to me that really means a closer cultural connection in every sense.
I don’t know that they WERE naive. Ever increasing mass immigration from the Third World was ALREADY in full swing as CINO/LINO (Conservative In Name Only / Labour In Name Only) policy. It was ALSO established policy within the EU.
Leaving the EU was an opportunity which would NEVER, EVER come again. Voters anger was at such a pitch that ANY target would be lashed out at.
Camerons great mistake was thinking that the voters could be reasoned with or frightened with paper tigers. You could see the naked fear in Westminster, where no MP dare vote for the abject surrender they so ardently desired, with the EU openly gloating (prematurely as it would transpire) at their presumed victory.
That was certainly why some people were skeptical of making a Leave vote, they felt that it was going to be used as a way to do the opposite of many of the things Leave supporters wanted. So more migration from other parts of the world which were more culturally different, increasing economic libertarianism to the detriment of local workers, and so on.And it’s difficult to say those peopel were wrong.
I remember there were some who hoped that European migration might be replaced by people coming from Commonwealth countries, which has happened to some extent, but it’s not clear to me that really means a closer cultural connection in every sense.
A well-argued article. At the time of the EU referendum, I thought that people voting Leave in order to control immigration were extremely naive. As Johnson actually proudly made clear, Britain would simply replace one type of mass immigration – from Europe – with another, mainly from Africa and South Asia. And support for Leave amongst ethnic minority communities was heavily influenced by this: why should some random Pole, say, have freer entry into the country than my cousin from Pakistan? As the article points out – and this is virtually unsayable nowadays- the switch to more non-European immigration has indeed created problems with regard to the assimilation of newcomers and social cohesion. The latter things matter if we are to have a society rather than people who simply share a piece of land. And the points made by commenters here about the Ponzi-scheme and short-term nature of mass immigration ‘benefits’ are well made. Trouble ahead!
We refer to ‘immigrants’ when what we see are hordes of feral, barely civilised, threatening and aggressive young men foisted on us.
Many pople view this not so much as an invasion, but as an infestation.
But “immigrants” is the wrong word to describe them. They do not characterise most immigrants: they are a special and minor subcategory that should not be generalised.
I do share your view towards the sort of barely-civilised young male from a developing country who doesn’t even appear to know that sexual assault is illegal – of course I do. All I’m saying is that he’s not a typical immigrant.
You are quite right. Many – most – immigrants with their families enrich our society with their skills and willingness to integrate. These opportunistic young males are nothing more than vermin.
You are quite right. Many – most – immigrants with their families enrich our society with their skills and willingness to integrate. These opportunistic young males are nothing more than vermin.
But “immigrants” is the wrong word to describe them. They do not characterise most immigrants: they are a special and minor subcategory that should not be generalised.
I do share your view towards the sort of barely-civilised young male from a developing country who doesn’t even appear to know that sexual assault is illegal – of course I do. All I’m saying is that he’s not a typical immigrant.
We refer to ‘immigrants’ when what we see are hordes of feral, barely civilised, threatening and aggressive young men foisted on us.
Many pople view this not so much as an invasion, but as an infestation.
When the vote came I was fifty fifty. Not being a businessman the economics didn’t swing it. I’d had a multi national upbringing so “foreigners” were not an issue. What swung it for me (apart from the ever increasing proliferation of new rules and laws) was the dismay I felt as I saw more and more of our countryside disappearing under soulless urbanisation and development. I believed the electoral lies, not because it was rational, but because I wanted to. So yes, betrayed, as I saw unfold exactly what Powell’s expose surmised. The present government have no intention of deviating from this path Sweeping changes without a mandate started under Blair. We were suckered into an increasingly political EU, the EU being the love child of WEF. We have sold our independence, autonomy and economy down the swanee and our only recourse is millions of impoverished migrants, so we now gamble away our remaining resource, the land itself. If I thought my vote had a vestige of influence I would have some hope. But we are no longer a democracy.
When the vote came I was fifty fifty. Not being a businessman the economics didn’t swing it. I’d had a multi national upbringing so “foreigners” were not an issue. What swung it for me (apart from the ever increasing proliferation of new rules and laws) was the dismay I felt as I saw more and more of our countryside disappearing under soulless urbanisation and development. I believed the electoral lies, not because it was rational, but because I wanted to. So yes, betrayed, as I saw unfold exactly what Powell’s expose surmised. The present government have no intention of deviating from this path Sweeping changes without a mandate started under Blair. We were suckered into an increasingly political EU, the EU being the love child of WEF. We have sold our independence, autonomy and economy down the swanee and our only recourse is millions of impoverished migrants, so we now gamble away our remaining resource, the land itself. If I thought my vote had a vestige of influence I would have some hope. But we are no longer a democracy.
Really? Its not simmering below the surface, its been a major topic of debate for 20 years or more.
And please don’t confuse Immigration with Asylum Seekers – Legal immigration is totally different from illegal immigration.
This was precisely Blair’s intention – to confuse and conflate different categories of migrant, and stultify any debate by constantly changing and reversing his ground.
This was precisely Blair’s intention – to confuse and conflate different categories of migrant, and stultify any debate by constantly changing and reversing his ground.
Really? Its not simmering below the surface, its been a major topic of debate for 20 years or more.
And please don’t confuse Immigration with Asylum Seekers – Legal immigration is totally different from illegal immigration.
The globalists have decided to deconstruct all Western societies and replace them with a sort of homogenized global non-culture. This is needed to make sure that nobody has the ability to resist the plutocracy — ever increasing wealth for them, ever deepening poverty for the rest of us. Strong societies that have a sense of cohesion might offer resistance to this agenda, so the first task is to destroy society. Blacks and Muslims are the best tools for that job.
The globalists have decided to deconstruct all Western societies and replace them with a sort of homogenized global non-culture. This is needed to make sure that nobody has the ability to resist the plutocracy — ever increasing wealth for them, ever deepening poverty for the rest of us. Strong societies that have a sense of cohesion might offer resistance to this agenda, so the first task is to destroy society. Blacks and Muslims are the best tools for that job.
The long march of deconstruction of national identity in the UK is a phenomenon which will be written about in historical texts of the future – as an explanation for the collapse of its governance and national cohesion, and eventual decline as an economic and political actor in the world.
“Progressives like to villify the nation state as intrinsically fascistic,” the author wrote.This is of course the underlying belief that supports subversion of our borders by the human rights industries, a collective of activists in the immense civil service and it’s quangos, and a legal profession made up of social justice warriors and natives of those countries determined to facilitate entry to the UK – legally or illegally.
There are no demands from them that other countries follow the same path of national deconstruction – that would be viewed as post-colonial and “racist.” As Fazi observes, common social bonds and defined territory are the norm for nations worldwide, and their absence “is to deny the existence if society itself.”
But not so for “progressive” Britain. All must repeat that mindless mantra “Diversity is our Strength,” or face ostracism from job and society, and stand by while any trace of nationhood is dissipated.
The long march of deconstruction of national identity in the UK is a phenomenon which will be written about in historical texts of the future – as an explanation for the collapse of its governance and national cohesion, and eventual decline as an economic and political actor in the world.
“Progressives like to villify the nation state as intrinsically fascistic,” the author wrote.This is of course the underlying belief that supports subversion of our borders by the human rights industries, a collective of activists in the immense civil service and it’s quangos, and a legal profession made up of social justice warriors and natives of those countries determined to facilitate entry to the UK – legally or illegally.
There are no demands from them that other countries follow the same path of national deconstruction – that would be viewed as post-colonial and “racist.” As Fazi observes, common social bonds and defined territory are the norm for nations worldwide, and their absence “is to deny the existence if society itself.”
But not so for “progressive” Britain. All must repeat that mindless mantra “Diversity is our Strength,” or face ostracism from job and society, and stand by while any trace of nationhood is dissipated.
Good article and concur with most of it’s key points.
The issue for the Right is it has to explain why Brexiteer led Govts felt the need to loosen non-EU immigration? This is a classic Right wing contradiction, and also arguably a Brexit contradiction as the Leave argument was not fulsome in how it would address economic issues with less immigration. The fundamental is the ‘Right’ loves cheap labour. It sure as hell doesn’t want to hand more bargaining power to organised labour. It thus hasn’t gotten round to squaring this ‘desire’ with the lower immigration ‘desire’. Instead it’ll blame others, rather than step back, be honest and seriously think about what it’s doing.
It’s important to differentiate the increase in legal immigration the Tories have permitted since Brexit from the surge in asylum seekers coming in rubber boats. One is a deliberate policy, the other an accident part fuelled by a lack of joined up Policy. But one also wonders if something deliberately malign is at work when asylum seekers are placed in accommodation in poor areas for months, even years. If you wanted to stoke tensions on which you can then play for headlines with ‘red meat’ statements what better method. Were they placed in Mayfair hotels one suspects the problems would be addressed much quicker but Tory funders would object.
Stop confusing Thatcherite boomers with conservatives.
That’s easy to say but the contradiction between the free-market, deregulating, “global Britain”, Leaver elite and the blue collar, socially conservative.but statist, Brexit voters lies unresolved at the heart of Brexit and is tearing the Conservative party asunder.
Yeah this is not a conservative government by a long shot. I think that went and resides in the small Brexit parties. I wish they would unite and make more of a dent. I know the UKIP party is willing but the Reform party resists for some reason.
How can people do that when they have to vote for a party that is both, bringing to the front whichever is the most convenient face at the time?
The Brexit argument at it’s best was something between traditional conservatism and traditional leftism, but it seems to be the boomers who have control in the background.
That’s easy to say but the contradiction between the free-market, deregulating, “global Britain”, Leaver elite and the blue collar, socially conservative.but statist, Brexit voters lies unresolved at the heart of Brexit and is tearing the Conservative party asunder.
Yeah this is not a conservative government by a long shot. I think that went and resides in the small Brexit parties. I wish they would unite and make more of a dent. I know the UKIP party is willing but the Reform party resists for some reason.
How can people do that when they have to vote for a party that is both, bringing to the front whichever is the most convenient face at the time?
The Brexit argument at it’s best was something between traditional conservatism and traditional leftism, but it seems to be the boomers who have control in the background.
“Left” and “right” aren’t monolithic blocs whose members agree on everything. It’s not that “the right” wants both lower immigration and cheap labour, it’s that some people on the right want lower immigration and others want cheap labour.
It certainly does sound like a deliberate policy probably a WEF one.
Oh, the hard ones first? The Conservative Party has never cared for the English voter. It has always believed in the free movement of capital, without regard for the social consequences. During the Imperial Era this took place largely off-stage, and (not coincidentally) enriched a significant minority of the aspiring working class and lower to mid-middle classes, creating a solid voter base for the Conservatives.
With the collapse of the Empire, de-industriakisation and subsequent asset-stripping of the nation, those voters have no reason left to support the Conservatives – who have simply abandoned them in return
Stop confusing Thatcherite boomers with conservatives.
“Left” and “right” aren’t monolithic blocs whose members agree on everything. It’s not that “the right” wants both lower immigration and cheap labour, it’s that some people on the right want lower immigration and others want cheap labour.
It certainly does sound like a deliberate policy probably a WEF one.
Oh, the hard ones first? The Conservative Party has never cared for the English voter. It has always believed in the free movement of capital, without regard for the social consequences. During the Imperial Era this took place largely off-stage, and (not coincidentally) enriched a significant minority of the aspiring working class and lower to mid-middle classes, creating a solid voter base for the Conservatives.
With the collapse of the Empire, de-industriakisation and subsequent asset-stripping of the nation, those voters have no reason left to support the Conservatives – who have simply abandoned them in return
Good article and concur with most of it’s key points.
The issue for the Right is it has to explain why Brexiteer led Govts felt the need to loosen non-EU immigration? This is a classic Right wing contradiction, and also arguably a Brexit contradiction as the Leave argument was not fulsome in how it would address economic issues with less immigration. The fundamental is the ‘Right’ loves cheap labour. It sure as hell doesn’t want to hand more bargaining power to organised labour. It thus hasn’t gotten round to squaring this ‘desire’ with the lower immigration ‘desire’. Instead it’ll blame others, rather than step back, be honest and seriously think about what it’s doing.
It’s important to differentiate the increase in legal immigration the Tories have permitted since Brexit from the surge in asylum seekers coming in rubber boats. One is a deliberate policy, the other an accident part fuelled by a lack of joined up Policy. But one also wonders if something deliberately malign is at work when asylum seekers are placed in accommodation in poor areas for months, even years. If you wanted to stoke tensions on which you can then play for headlines with ‘red meat’ statements what better method. Were they placed in Mayfair hotels one suspects the problems would be addressed much quicker but Tory funders would object.
They’ll turn this country into a similar hole to the one they left. Hopefully they’ll despair and move on.
They’ll turn this country into a similar hole to the one they left. Hopefully they’ll despair and move on.
Good article, reasoned and well argued. I don’t normally agree with the author, but he’s nailed it this time. Thanks.
Good article, reasoned and well argued. I don’t normally agree with the author, but he’s nailed it this time. Thanks.
Firstly what exactly IS racism? I am sick to death of not only the exponential use of this Americanism, the correct word, of course, being ” racialism” but the myopic, stubborn, dishonest, cowardly, disingenuous and utterly obstinate refusal of anyone on this medium to reply to my countless requests to those who use the word, to define its meaning?
Well I take it to mean being unnecessarily derogatory or hateful towards other races of people. Assuming all people of one race are the same ie: racist stereotyping.
Didn’t they spend enough on your education? Can write in Latin but you don’t know what racism means, I’d ask for a refund.
Dictionary saysss:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
“on the basis of their membership of a particular group” is NOT the same as “on the basis of excessive disproportionate numbers turning up”.
Liberals relaxed about uncurbed immigration seem to find it next to impossible to make that simple distinction. But human nature being what it is, the latter inevitably leads to the former, and continuing to allow unchecked illegal immigration will bring about the very reaction liberals would most deplore.
Like me, you probably enjoy a nice curry. But I doubt you could stomach one if a whole jar of curry powder had been tipped into the mix to make it. More, to a ridiculous extent, of what is good in moderate doses is not always better!
That is from the online dictionary so you would need to argue with them.
and a dictionary that clearlycannot even articulate the English language correctly!
and a dictionary that clearlycannot even articulate the English language correctly!
That is from the online dictionary so you would need to argue with them.
and who exactly defines ” unnecessary”? Which neo illiterate dictionary did you find that gives this ‘ definition’? … and uses the appallingly illiterate phrase “antagonism by an individual’? you really have made a fool of yourself!
Good question on what you define as unnecessary. We were told if you haven’t got anything nice to say about someone don’t say anything at all. Or don’t say something you wouldn’t say to that persons face. Or don’t be mean and spiteful. That kind of unnecessary I guess. That doesn’t mean we adhere to that stuff like angels ourselves. We are only human. But they’re the guidelines we got given.
I’m afraid the neo literate dictionary was the first Google result. They are silicon Valley types that run that, so again, you would have to take it up with the Americans.
Good question on what you define as unnecessary. We were told if you haven’t got anything nice to say about someone don’t say anything at all. Or don’t say something you wouldn’t say to that persons face. Or don’t be mean and spiteful. That kind of unnecessary I guess. That doesn’t mean we adhere to that stuff like angels ourselves. We are only human. But they’re the guidelines we got given.
I’m afraid the neo literate dictionary was the first Google result. They are silicon Valley types that run that, so again, you would have to take it up with the Americans.
“on the basis of their membership of a particular group” is NOT the same as “on the basis of excessive disproportionate numbers turning up”.
Liberals relaxed about uncurbed immigration seem to find it next to impossible to make that simple distinction. But human nature being what it is, the latter inevitably leads to the former, and continuing to allow unchecked illegal immigration will bring about the very reaction liberals would most deplore.
Like me, you probably enjoy a nice curry. But I doubt you could stomach one if a whole jar of curry powder had been tipped into the mix to make it. More, to a ridiculous extent, of what is good in moderate doses is not always better!
and who exactly defines ” unnecessary”? Which neo illiterate dictionary did you find that gives this ‘ definition’? … and uses the appallingly illiterate phrase “antagonism by an individual’? you really have made a fool of yourself!
Well I take it to mean being unnecessarily derogatory or hateful towards other races of people. Assuming all people of one race are the same ie: racist stereotyping.
Didn’t they spend enough on your education? Can write in Latin but you don’t know what racism means, I’d ask for a refund.
Dictionary saysss:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Firstly what exactly IS racism? I am sick to death of not only the exponential use of this Americanism, the correct word, of course, being ” racialism” but the myopic, stubborn, dishonest, cowardly, disingenuous and utterly obstinate refusal of anyone on this medium to reply to my countless requests to those who use the word, to define its meaning?
There was a protest in Rotherham on Sunday over channel migrants being put in a hotel in the town. A couple of days earlier on BBC Radio Sheffield the new Labour Mayor of South Yorkshire was asked in an interview about the protestors. He denounced them (and as bonus the Liverpool protestors) as “fascists”.
There seems to be zero tolerance from Labour for any dissent against putting migrants in red wall areas.
There was a protest in Rotherham on Sunday over channel migrants being put in a hotel in the town. A couple of days earlier on BBC Radio Sheffield the new Labour Mayor of South Yorkshire was asked in an interview about the protestors. He denounced them (and as bonus the Liverpool protestors) as “fascists”.
There seems to be zero tolerance from Labour for any dissent against putting migrants in red wall areas.
Among the numerous things no-one wants to discuss is that for many years, we had a perfectly good Seasonal Agricultural Worker Scheme, which was discarded in order to drive mass immigration from Eastern Europe. We had a perfectly good Primary Purpose legislation, controlling ingress of spouses and dependants, which was trashed for the same reason. We have provided massive incentives for Higher Education to maximise influx, offer them previously unheard-of rights and make no serious attempt to keep track of them subsequently.
We also provide huge sums to fund vexatious litigation by activist, ideologically motivated lawyers, while spending nothing to uphold the law of the land. Our very laws are nonsensical, in that it is possible to be convicted of refusing to believe a suspected lie, and if the lie is exposed the original conviction stands.
Among the numerous things no-one wants to discuss is that for many years, we had a perfectly good Seasonal Agricultural Worker Scheme, which was discarded in order to drive mass immigration from Eastern Europe. We had a perfectly good Primary Purpose legislation, controlling ingress of spouses and dependants, which was trashed for the same reason. We have provided massive incentives for Higher Education to maximise influx, offer them previously unheard-of rights and make no serious attempt to keep track of them subsequently.
We also provide huge sums to fund vexatious litigation by activist, ideologically motivated lawyers, while spending nothing to uphold the law of the land. Our very laws are nonsensical, in that it is possible to be convicted of refusing to believe a suspected lie, and if the lie is exposed the original conviction stands.
The idea behind mass immigration is to reduce indigenous Europeans to third-world status through over-population and increased competition for wages. It’s a form of reverse-colonization. It’s already happening in the US where Americans are being told by the political class that they are oppressors and therefore must suffer some form of pay-back for their ancestors’ misdeeds. This is the reason why concepts like family, husband, wife, mother, father, even basic male and female are being deconstructed in order to replace these with tribal (racial and sexual) identities. The classic divide and conquer strategy.
The idea behind mass immigration is to reduce indigenous Europeans to third-world status through over-population and increased competition for wages. It’s a form of reverse-colonization. It’s already happening in the US where Americans are being told by the political class that they are oppressors and therefore must suffer some form of pay-back for their ancestors’ misdeeds. This is the reason why concepts like family, husband, wife, mother, father, even basic male and female are being deconstructed in order to replace these with tribal (racial and sexual) identities. The classic divide and conquer strategy.
This is an excellent article. It sticks to the facts, argues only based on evidence, and avoids generalisations as much as possible under the circumstances.
If only the political establishment was capable of this where immigration is concerned.
They are fully capable of it, and always have been. The difference is that Blair understood the scope offered for a complete redefinition of the nature of politics amid the devastated political field following the total collapse of the Conservative Party – from within following 1992, and at the polls in 1997.
They are fully capable of it, and always have been. The difference is that Blair understood the scope offered for a complete redefinition of the nature of politics amid the devastated political field following the total collapse of the Conservative Party – from within following 1992, and at the polls in 1997.
This is an excellent article. It sticks to the facts, argues only based on evidence, and avoids generalisations as much as possible under the circumstances.
If only the political establishment was capable of this where immigration is concerned.
For left communitarians like me the presence of Fazi’s analysis is indispensable. The erosion of working class people’s life chances through untrammelled migration is a real factor in their alienation from politics. The progressive middle class left’s attempts to deny it in concert with the globalist/cosmopolitan right, lead to the rise of real despair and anger. I won’t judge working people in Britain, Sweden or the US who see what economist Brando Milanovic calls “citizen rent” being eroded by these policies. These rents are premium we get from living in a rich western country compared to say a basket case like the Congo or Albania. It is in a sense luck but the the fact is that people want to protect that whilst being reasonably open to the needs of others globally. But when that openness is abused it results in the rage we see on Merseyside and in Cornwall. The fact that it’s working class groups who suffer most from this ( whatever their so called leaders tell them) whether through wage competition, service access or cultural disruption, if it wants to stay rooted and relevant, needs to call it out.
For left communitarians like me the presence of Fazi’s analysis is indispensable. The erosion of working class people’s life chances through untrammelled migration is a real factor in their alienation from politics. The progressive middle class left’s attempts to deny it in concert with the globalist/cosmopolitan right, lead to the rise of real despair and anger. I won’t judge working people in Britain, Sweden or the US who see what economist Brando Milanovic calls “citizen rent” being eroded by these policies. These rents are premium we get from living in a rich western country compared to say a basket case like the Congo or Albania. It is in a sense luck but the the fact is that people want to protect that whilst being reasonably open to the needs of others globally. But when that openness is abused it results in the rage we see on Merseyside and in Cornwall. The fact that it’s working class groups who suffer most from this ( whatever their so called leaders tell them) whether through wage competition, service access or cultural disruption, if it wants to stay rooted and relevant, needs to call it out.
Wanting sustainable immigration is not racist, but an easy scapegoat. Immigration is the lazy politicians way of spurring on the economy, since most are economically illiterate. They looked like they knew what they were doing during the free-money era of the last decade, but now that they need to come up with productive means of driving the economy, they are lost.
Wanting sustainable immigration is not racist, but an easy scapegoat. Immigration is the lazy politicians way of spurring on the economy, since most are economically illiterate. They looked like they knew what they were doing during the free-money era of the last decade, but now that they need to come up with productive means of driving the economy, they are lost.
I think sunak needs to actually stop the boats, and especially get these hotels emptied, we need to start sending them back I’m afraid, what else can we do with them?
Why does nobody ever talk about the organised crime rings behind this? Why are they being allowed to run rampant in the first place?
We have a whole hotel full very nearby and my doctors is very hard to access.
I can understand why in some places up north people are getting very frustrated, there’s already a fair bit of tension in some of these communities, it might be wise for the government to really seriously get its arse in gear and deal with the problem, before it all blows up in their face.
Trouble is ‘send them back’ where, if they have dumped their papers?
France? Turn the boats around in the Channel, make it macrons problem. He has made plenty for us over the ferries and brexit etc.
The ones in the hotels get to choose. Where they came from or Rwanda?
France? Turn the boats around in the Channel, make it macrons problem. He has made plenty for us over the ferries and brexit etc.
The ones in the hotels get to choose. Where they came from or Rwanda?
Trouble is ‘send them back’ where, if they have dumped their papers?
I think sunak needs to actually stop the boats, and especially get these hotels emptied, we need to start sending them back I’m afraid, what else can we do with them?
Why does nobody ever talk about the organised crime rings behind this? Why are they being allowed to run rampant in the first place?
We have a whole hotel full very nearby and my doctors is very hard to access.
I can understand why in some places up north people are getting very frustrated, there’s already a fair bit of tension in some of these communities, it might be wise for the government to really seriously get its arse in gear and deal with the problem, before it all blows up in their face.
There really are a ton of people out there who would erase all borders on the planet. To them I ask: if there were a fire and two babies were at risk, one was yours the other a stranger’s – you could only save one – which one would you choose?
There really are a ton of people out there who would erase all borders on the planet. To them I ask: if there were a fire and two babies were at risk, one was yours the other a stranger’s – you could only save one – which one would you choose?
A brilliant piece and a subject that could turn elections. That no government has acted effectively against this for decades makes one wonder if that is the plan from the globalists (think WEF) in order to disrupt civilisation and break them down ready for takeover? ECHR is blamed by the politicians for nothing being done about it. How long can they blame that and do nothing about i? It feels to me that the electorate is being overuled by the globalists at the top of our government.
A brilliant piece and a subject that could turn elections. That no government has acted effectively against this for decades makes one wonder if that is the plan from the globalists (think WEF) in order to disrupt civilisation and break them down ready for takeover? ECHR is blamed by the politicians for nothing being done about it. How long can they blame that and do nothing about i? It feels to me that the electorate is being overuled by the globalists at the top of our government.
There is a difference between legal immigrants who come here to do jobs that we need them to do and illegal migrants and ‘asylum seekers’. This article does not fully make the distinction or seem to understand why it is so important to people.
Legal immigrants who come to work also pay into the system. Many leave again or only come for the summer and autumn. It is the illegal migrants that we need to be cracking down upon.
There is a difference between legal immigrants who come here to do jobs that we need them to do and illegal migrants and ‘asylum seekers’. This article does not fully make the distinction or seem to understand why it is so important to people.
Legal immigrants who come to work also pay into the system. Many leave again or only come for the summer and autumn. It is the illegal migrants that we need to be cracking down upon.
What about the colonialist immorality of attracting and taking ‘highly skilled’ immigrants from countries with far fewer doctors and engineers and a lot more wars, dictators, and malnutrition? Or attracting and taking the people who have more money (most immigrants and refugees) and leaving the poorest to fend for themselves?
Canada loudly seeks to bring in the ‘best and the brightest’. This includes people whose families and/or nations spent gobs of money on their university degrees and just getting their export-citizens’ English language level adequate for communicating with us and our ‘loved ones’ – young, disabled, and elderly – whose care we farm out to institutions.
Presumably those highly skilled immigrants want to leave for a better life and Canada wants to have them. Where is the immorality?
The immorality is in the adverse impact on the disadvantaged in the wealth- and high skill-exporting countries. Rich countries get more wealth, more doctors, more engineers, more knowledge and the poor in poorer countries lose the benefit of these national assets. Their intellectual, leadership, and fiscal capital is continually drained which makes home-grown infrastructure, leadership, political, and health improvements unreachable. Then poorer nations depend on our ‘charity’, and the profit-motivated ‘poverty reduction’ schemes of corporate-globalist World Bankers, IMFers, and WEFers.
The immorality is in the adverse impact on the disadvantaged in the wealth- and high skill-exporting countries. Rich countries get more wealth, more doctors, more engineers, more knowledge and the poor in poorer countries lose the benefit of these national assets. Their intellectual, leadership, and fiscal capital is continually drained which makes home-grown infrastructure, leadership, political, and health improvements unreachable. Then poorer nations depend on our ‘charity’, and the profit-motivated ‘poverty reduction’ schemes of corporate-globalist World Bankers, IMFers, and WEFers.
Then Why is Canada such a commercial, industrial and financial services third world country?
Presumably those highly skilled immigrants want to leave for a better life and Canada wants to have them. Where is the immorality?
Then Why is Canada such a commercial, industrial and financial services third world country?
What about the colonialist immorality of attracting and taking ‘highly skilled’ immigrants from countries with far fewer doctors and engineers and a lot more wars, dictators, and malnutrition? Or attracting and taking the people who have more money (most immigrants and refugees) and leaving the poorest to fend for themselves?
Canada loudly seeks to bring in the ‘best and the brightest’. This includes people whose families and/or nations spent gobs of money on their university degrees and just getting their export-citizens’ English language level adequate for communicating with us and our ‘loved ones’ – young, disabled, and elderly – whose care we farm out to institutions.
“What’s driving Britain’s anti-migrant protests?”
The housing crisis, and amply justified resentment of institutional anti-white racism.
“What’s driving Britain’s anti-migrant protests?”
The housing crisis, and amply justified resentment of institutional anti-white racism.
How did it come about that it is assumed that someone questioning immigration levels (or the source of immigrant populations) is necessarily and only making the case on racist grounds? And how did it come about that the assumption appears as an intellectually respectable item in public discourse, to be mentioned without being torn to pieces, even in well reasoned articles like this one? Actually, if someone’s views on immigration are motivated by racist views, then we need evidence of the fact that the view on immigration is specifically connected to the racial attributes of immigrants viewed negatively, and not have these two logically unrelated views, racism and concern over immigration, jammed together for political reasons.
How did it come about that it is assumed that someone questioning immigration levels (or the source of immigrant populations) is necessarily and only making the case on racist grounds? And how did it come about that the assumption appears as an intellectually respectable item in public discourse, to be mentioned without being torn to pieces, even in well reasoned articles like this one? Actually, if someone’s views on immigration are motivated by racist views, then we need evidence of the fact that the view on immigration is specifically connected to the racial attributes of immigrants viewed negatively, and not have these two logically unrelated views, racism and concern over immigration, jammed together for political reasons.
Australia has a point system for immigration that only allows skilled workers into the country. Even though all my family emigrated there many years ago, I wasn’t allowed to emigrate because(although a white Brit) I didn’t have a career at the time. This was hard for me, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Australia has maintained a high standard of living and quality of life that makes it, perhaps, the most desirable place to live in the world.
Australia has a point system for immigration that only allows skilled workers into the country. Even though all my family emigrated there many years ago, I wasn’t allowed to emigrate because(although a white Brit) I didn’t have a career at the time. This was hard for me, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Australia has maintained a high standard of living and quality of life that makes it, perhaps, the most desirable place to live in the world.
Obviously, immigration has to be capped and to be managed. Sometimes a country needs more, sometimes less.
Problem is, there never is a considered strategy. It’s all laissez-faire, punctuated by outbursts of reaction. Both approaches are stupid.
But in addition to a sensible immigration policy, we also need compulsory sterilisation for feckless parents – blokes who father children and throw them on the state.
And we need to re-introduce national service and re-introduce public floggings and/or deportation to penal colonies for persistently anti-social chavs and drug gangs.
Some readers will think this comment is, at least in part, a wind-up, but they’d be wrong.
Obviously, immigration has to be capped and to be managed. Sometimes a country needs more, sometimes less.
Problem is, there never is a considered strategy. It’s all laissez-faire, punctuated by outbursts of reaction. Both approaches are stupid.
But in addition to a sensible immigration policy, we also need compulsory sterilisation for feckless parents – blokes who father children and throw them on the state.
And we need to re-introduce national service and re-introduce public floggings and/or deportation to penal colonies for persistently anti-social chavs and drug gangs.
Some readers will think this comment is, at least in part, a wind-up, but they’d be wrong.
The low skilled immigrants largely live in areas where there are many low skilled people competing for low paid jobs, social housing, overcrowded poor schools, social housing and healthcare. Many immigrants appear to obtain resources from the government far quicker than those born here and are not prepared to assimilate if they have to rescind parts of their religions and customs. The cases of men of Pakistani ethnicity of the Islamic religion grooming mostly white working class girls is a problem. There appears to be no way of checking the criminal records and skills of those who claim refugee status .
In French there is s saying ” People may be loyal with their stomachs but not their hearts “. Are the immigrants prepared to die defending this country?
After WW1 Lloyd George said we should build homes for heroes. The granting of voting rights post 1815, the creation of the Welfare State after WW1 and it’s enlargement post WW2 was a mark of respect from the middle an upper classes for the working class who fought in wars.
Uncontrolled unskilled immigration some of it by criminals with access to the resources provided by taxes has undermined the rapport between the working class and the middle and upper classes. This is fuelling the protests.
As the vast majority of the left wing middle class and even some of the Conservative business classes despise patriotism and physical courage, they fail to understand uncontrolled immigration, most of it low skilled, some of it criminal, all having access to resources provided by tax payers causes anger amongst the working class. Why did the working class suffer death and injury protecting the middle and upper classes in two world wars?
The low skilled immigrants largely live in areas where there are many low skilled people competing for low paid jobs, social housing, overcrowded poor schools, social housing and healthcare. Many immigrants appear to obtain resources from the government far quicker than those born here and are not prepared to assimilate if they have to rescind parts of their religions and customs. The cases of men of Pakistani ethnicity of the Islamic religion grooming mostly white working class girls is a problem. There appears to be no way of checking the criminal records and skills of those who claim refugee status .
In French there is s saying ” People may be loyal with their stomachs but not their hearts “. Are the immigrants prepared to die defending this country?
After WW1 Lloyd George said we should build homes for heroes. The granting of voting rights post 1815, the creation of the Welfare State after WW1 and it’s enlargement post WW2 was a mark of respect from the middle an upper classes for the working class who fought in wars.
Uncontrolled unskilled immigration some of it by criminals with access to the resources provided by taxes has undermined the rapport between the working class and the middle and upper classes. This is fuelling the protests.
As the vast majority of the left wing middle class and even some of the Conservative business classes despise patriotism and physical courage, they fail to understand uncontrolled immigration, most of it low skilled, some of it criminal, all having access to resources provided by tax payers causes anger amongst the working class. Why did the working class suffer death and injury protecting the middle and upper classes in two world wars?
Thank you
It is a bit, though.
Blessed you. Best accurate, balanced, intelligent (if not obvious) explanation ever. On a personal level I am so weary of the intententional distortions that always lead to the oh so convenient racist charge. The truth is so plain (and inconvenient) and remains consistently repudiated. Can’t have democracy based on, defined by and supported by packs of linguistic at best) lies. Thank you for this.
This isn’t just a challenge for the UK. The latest UNICEF report shows over 100million refugees globally displaced by war and famine, and then you have the economic migrants on top. For me there is a real sense of you reap what you sow. Since the collapse of colonialism after the second World War, western economic plans have all been focused on creating a world market, benefitting the west, by abusing cheap third world labour while proclaiming the western lifestyle as the “dream lifestyle”. If we keep proclaiming the “streets paved in gold” built on third world labour- guess what? People will want to be part of it.
Many Third world environmental issues are primarily at the hands of western companies stripping resources and capital for shareholder dividends.
With 100million refugees fleeing war and famine what about not profiteering from the trillion dollar arms trade that America and Europe sell to the developing world? What about the millions of people displaced by the crass development restrictions imposed on third world countries by the World Bank or as it is more appropriately called – USA self serving foreign policy Bank .
Throwing up a wall either political or physical around wealthy nations is inappropriate unless we are willing to genuinely do something about the root cause – colonialism through consumerism breeds resentment, jealousy, and a grossly imbalanced distribution of the basic needs of all humanity.