Throughout the referendum campaign, there was much hysteria whipped up surrounding the issue of European immigration to the United Kingdom and the affect this was having on public services and integration within communities. It is safe to say, however, that this is on point upon which I agree wholeheartedly with our disgraced former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. In a recent speech on the issue of Europe he claimed that we need European immigrants and in any case, it is non-European immigration that many of the more nationalistic Brexiteers (which is most of us) actually care about. On the second count, he is most certainly correct. With regards to ‘needing’ European immigrants, the case can indeed be made that we do, however perhaps not for the reasons Mr Blair has in mind.
The fact of the matter is that the most problematic immigration for the United Kingdom has been non-European – and for the sake of ‘telling it how it is’ I shall refer to the two types of immigration as white (European) and non-white.
Terrorism for the most part is a problem brought to the United Kingdom by non-white immigrants, mostly from the Indian sub-continent but also from Africa and the Arab nations. Of course, many will point to ‘home grown terrorism’ such as in the case of the 7/7 bombings, but the perpetrators were non-white children of non-white immigrants anyway. Other examples include the high-profile cases of industrial-scale child sex abuse in Rotherham, Oxford and other cities around the UK; these were incidences of non-white immigrants (or their descendants) gang-raping white English girls. It is also the case that the most over-represented minority groups in British prisons are black African/Afro-Caribbean and non-white Islamic – European migrants are thought to commit crime at no greater rate than the native population, for the most part.
In economic terms, the well respected institution Migration Watch produced a report based on figures from independent research institutions. All sources show that non-EU immigration has a fiscal impact of anything from -£3bn to -£17bn, showing that non-white immigration essentially is detracting from the public purse (this is before one takes into account that many of these results contain flawed inputs that favour the immigrant). On the other hand, the report demonstrated that white/European immigrants contributed positively to the public purse by at least £1.3bn. It is true that whilst western European immigrants contribute positively, immigrants from the former communist nations of the east tend to have a slightly negative impact but this is something that I shall cover in due course.
Even in as far as modern leftist-infiltrated science will allow us to, we can demonstrate the difference in genetic stock between white European migrants and non-white migrants. The best measure of this which also helps determine the desirability of an immigrant group is IQ scores, as this is a good method to predict how productive somebody will be as a member of a new society, as IQ and income directly correlate in all major studies conducted on the matter. The average IQ of the United Kingdom is between 99-101, depending on which study is taken into account. Looking at the rest of Europe, one will find that the IQ of Switzerland and Norway is 101 and 100 respectively, Estonia 99, Poland 99, Czech Republic 98, Denmark 98, Hungary 98 and Slovakia 96, to name a few. Looking further afield, the bulk of non-white immigrants that have come to the United Kingdom are from India (82) and Pakistan (84) – clearly way off the mark in comparison to European nations who have a reasonably similar national IQ average to ourselves. We can infer just from this data that European migrants will fit into our learning institutions and aspire to better job roles than their non-European counterparts.
The point here is that before taking the demographic issue into account, we can objectively prove that white immigration brings more financial benefits to the UK than non-white, therefore the former is more desirable. It is also clear that non-white immigrants pose a much greater security risk to the United Kingdom than white Europeans do in terms of terrorism and related issue. So when Tony Blair claims that anti-immigration sentiment is more directed towards those from outside of the European Union, he is certainly not mistaken.
However, the point of this article is not to demonstrate the financial benefits of one type of migration over another. Rather, it is to propose a migration-based solution to the United Kingdom’s – more specifically, England’s – demographic crisis.
We have a problem in the United Kingdom in that native English families are not having children anymore, whilst the fertility rate of third world immigrants is explosively high. This is creating a trend that is gaining momentum, whereby white English people are becoming a minority in more and more places as each year goes by. By the middle of this century, it is highly probable that we will be a minority across the land as a whole. In 2001, 87% of people residing in England were white British; by 2011 this had dropped to 79% and today it is even lower. In the same time period, Asians went from being 5.1% of the population to 7.8, whilst the black percentage of our population went from 2.3-3.5%. The mixed race population also increased during this time from 1.4-2.3%.
This presents a massive problem as it is changing the racial and therefore cultural make up of our nation. This is where the desirability of European immigrants becomes ever more apparent, for native English families are simply not having children at the rate needed to sustain, let alone increase our share of the population (native English fertility stands below 1.78). Therefore, a ‘quick fix’ solution to stem the current trend is to increase European immigration to counteract the exponential population growth amongst non-white immigrants within our society. Whilst not as ideal as increasing the fertility rate of native residents, it is easy for European immigrants to adapt to our society due to the cultural similarities between us and within a generation they can quite comfortably be indistinguishable from the native population.
And this is not just about skin colour, but about all that goes along with it. White Europeans are culturally, linguistically and religiously much closer to native English people than non-white, third world migrants ever could be. We are all Christians, we have fought together in multiple wars, we all speak Indo-European languages using largely the same alphabet (barring one or two exceptions), we share similar values in relation to trade, family life – right down to daily structure and eating habits. In other words, they can be ‘angliscised’ relatively easily, which is what we should strive for. We should not aspire to create a ‘European’ society, but rather an English society first and foremost which cannot be achieved if the current rate of increase in the non-white immigrant (and descended) population continues.
Integration and the ‘quality’ of immigrants will always pose some issues, however, despite where the immigrant originates from. For example, we have the issue of entire Polish communities being set up as sort of enclaves of Polish culture around the country, whilst there have been issues with people coming here from Romania and Bulgaria who often turn out to not be of a desired quality ie contributing to the system. In particular, it is often said that amongst immigrants from Romania are many gypsies.
The solution is simple to issue number one; radical integration reform. Integration policies must be active at every level of society, directed by central government right down to local authority level. This means that the policy must be uniform at every stage of government – a suggestion would be to reserve between 2-5% of every newly built housing estate for European immigrants, ensuring that they are dispersed evenly within society. Another good way of integrating the next generation quickly would be to legislate to ensure that schools observed a similar ration – 5-10% of students from a European background and 90% from a native English background. Of course, it is essential that no concessions are made on things like languages of official documents and so on.
Issue number two is a bit more complex, as it involves being selective within a national group in terms of who can come here. To ensure the quality of migrants entering our nation from the European Union, it may be the case that we need costly micro-management measures putting in place, such as an IQ and English language test with minimum standards as a requirement for acquiring a visa. Alternatively, we could set a numerical quota but fast track visas from nations who’s immigrants to the UK have a good track record, such as Germans, French and people from the Baltic states. The point is, there are many ways to select immigrants in terms of quality, even if they are somewhat costly.
Whilst I am aware that this point of view will be unpopular amongst leftists and Brexiteers alike – even if for different reasons – it is surely the only short-term solution to the demographic crisis we find ourselves in here in the United Kingdom. We are currently being out-bred by non-European migrants and eventually they will make up a large enough percentage of the population to out-vote us and therefore treat us and our culture however they see fit. We must not allow this to happen – just take a look at South Africa and what is happening there; the white Afrikaners are being marginalised both culturally and economically to the point that half a million have left since 1994. They are being murdered at a higher rate than any other ethnic group in their country – is this how we wish to be treated in 50 years time? I think not.