Last month, a professor of economics published a remarkable article called How to have a sensible conversation about immigration
. This piece is remarkable not because of its content but because of the magazine in which it was published, the creepingly left-wing journal of Islington liberals and champagne socialists the New Statesman
. Its author, Paul Collier
, is Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government and Professorial Fellow of St Antony’s College.
Herein he makes 10 points, what he calls blocks, which include:
"Most immigrants prefer to retain their own culture and hence to cluster together."
"In economic terms, migrants are the principal beneficiaries of migration..."
"In high-income societies, the effect of immigration on the average incomes of the indigenous population is trivial. Economies are not damaged by immigration; nor do they need it".
"The social effects of immigration outweigh the economic, so they should be the main criteria for policy."
"The control of immigration is a human right. The group instinct to defend territory is common throughout the animal kingdom; it is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property. The right to control immigration is asserted by all societies."
"Migration is not an inevitable consequence of globalisation".
Whether or not you agree with any, none or all of the above points, what is remarkable is not that they were assembled by an academic but that they could be elaborated in any but a fringe or possibly an obscure academic journal.
Leaving aside the thorny issue of race, the good professor is saying in effect what most of the "far right" in Britain and indeed the rest of Europe has been saying for decades, ie we don't want mass immigration and we have the right to defend both our culture and our borders.
Taking a UK perspective, although mass immigration did not begin in the 1960s, this was the decade when the make up of the country began to change significantly. The 1970s in particular saw a massive influx of Asians, not from Asia, but from Uganda when Idi Amin gave them their marching orders. It was really as simple as that, unlike Nazi Germany which saw progressive anti-Jewish legislation followed by expulsion, the Government of Uganda simply gave them 90 days to leave the country, and they did without any meaningful protest or backlash from any individual or government, even the Indian Government. Over 27,000 came to the UK, and by and large Asians have been no problem, okay, there were the grooming gangs
, but the vast majority have either established their own businesses or moved into the professions. In its January 1995 issue, THE ASIAN BUSINESS MAGAZINE
lauded its ABC accredited circulation of nearly fifty thousand then pointed out it was “The magazine for the men and women who own more than 70% of Britain’s independent outlets”.
Another minority who have been in the UK for a long time, in much smaller numbers, are the Chinese. The 1932 George Formby number Chinese Laundry Blues
may be a novelty song, but it is one that was grounded in fact. Today, many Chinese work in catering and as the world over where they emigrate, there are Chinatowns in the UK, most notably in the West End
of London, but also much smaller ones in Leeds and other cities. The Chinese are in many ways the ideal minority, they are insular, mind their own business, and even when rarely engaged in crime, this is largely an internal affair, as with the recent terrible mass murder
of the Ding family.
Having said all that, and without pointing the finger at any group in particular, it is far from true that all immigrants are model citizens and even less true that immigration is universally beneficial; this applies not simply to the UK nor to Europe or the West but worldwide. Currently, the Saudis are kicking out illegal immigrants
, a move that is not universally popular.
In the UK though we have since the early 1970s and before seen a systematic, well-funded and well organised movement to denounce, vilify, slander, persecute and at times to physically attack anyone or almost anyone who dared to suggest that immigration, even uncontrolled immigration was anything but a good thing. Those who opposed it were smeared as racists
- whatever that means - Nazis, and, curiously, as anti-Semites, even though Jewish immigration has not been an issue since the 1940s. The propaganda directed at anti-immigration groups and individuals has been blatant and subtle in equal measure, and new forms of racism
have been invented then tailored to fit. We have even seen fashion racism
, and food racism
, while claims of racial profiling
are likewise not confined to the United States.
The nonsense espoused by groups like the loony Socialist Workers Party beggars belief, according to them, even the mere mention of immigration controls can only be "THE ROAD TO DACHAU
Of course, if immigration were always so totally beneficial, there is a simple solution: why don't we all emigrate? Why doesn't everyone from the UK, Russia, China, every nation on Earth up roots and move somewhere else? We all know that is not the way it works, mass immigration is from the so-called Third World to the West, and now to a very limited extent, to China. Why is this? As the good professor points out, immigrants are seeking a better life, for themselves, not for anyone else. Naturally, the natives are resentful of this, and by and large always have been, not because they are racist
and even less because they are evil but because unless they have either bags of money or strong cultural ties to the new country, immigrants are seldom popular; if you don't understand why, ask the Palestinians, or better still the people we call Native Americans today.
The recent "offer" by the Government of Sweden
to give asylum to all Syrian refugees was a stunt aimed at drawing international attention to the problem, but imagine what would have been the reaction of the people of Sweden if it had been taken up. Clearly, this is lunacy.
The latest propaganda by the unaccountable bureaucracy in Europe
is to claim Britain will be viewed as "nasty" if it does not kowtow to the waves of Romanians and Bulgarians that are to come here. Of course, if we are so nasty, why do they or why does anyone want to come here: immigrant, tourist, student or "asylum seeker" ?
And if the UK is so inherently nasty, why did it raise £13 million for the Philippines relief effort
in a mere 24 hours? Haven't we had enough of this absurd emotional blackmail and race-baiting?
Now though, the tide is turning, or is it? Having been deluged with wave after wave of immigrants, most of whom are unassimilable, and who like the Chinese have no wish to assimilate, why are we now having a "sensible" debate about immigration, especially as the bulk of the latest and the next wave of immigrants are from Europe?
Why have we seen the absurd spectacle of the government of the day sending vans out into the streets warning illegal immigrants to "go home" or face arrest?
The reason has nothing to do with what is best for Britain, rather the penny has finally dropped for the liberal elite. The large waves of immigrants, especially Moslems, has not resulted in what they were hoping for, whatever that was. For the SWP it was to import the revolution the British working classes would never make; it was of course the working classes who were always most resolutely opposed to immigration. For the Islington set it was such things as the so-called counterculture and gay
Surprise, surprise though, where they saw liberation and freedom, Moslems see only depravity and degeneracy; there will be no gay
liberation under sharia
, no recreational drugs, no binge drinking and ladette culture. When the people at the New Statesman
witnessed the grotesque murder of Lee Rigby
on a South London street, their first thoughts were not for the soldier and his family but for their own necks.
At the other end of the spectrum, the riots of August 2011 including the sickening violence
meted out by the underclass to innocent people was another wake up call. When the great unwashed are rioting in the streets of Brixton, who cares? If though this violence and social disorder were to spread to Islington, or perish the thought to millionaires' row, Hampstead, that would be a different matter entirely.
This then is why at the 59th minute of the 11th hour the New Statesman
wants to have a "sensible" discussion about immigration. Alas, for them as for the rest of us, it is too late. Welcome to the paradise. You created it.