Immigration  and the price of a liberal conscience

Robert Henderson

British politicians and the mainstream media has been  excitedly  pointing  to what they describe  as the great generosity of the British public  in offering to take  immigrants into their homes. The reality is rather different  for the  number of  people living in Britain who have offered a home to  immigrants is meagre,  a few thousand out of a British population  of approximately 64 million. Even this small number  is highly suspect  because  these are merely people who have offered to take refugees   without being tested  by the reality of having people in their home.   Moreover, many of those who have offered have not done so in an open ended fashion. Instead they have put their hands up for a few weeks or months or perhaps even a year, although the reality of assessing asylum claims is several years and conceivably much longer. Longer term

Much  of the enthusiasm for taking in immigrants has been  expressed not by  offering to lodge them in private homes but in lobbying councils to find accommodation for immigrants.  This is unlikely to cost those lobbying anything because such people will most probably not be in need of  social housing or live in an area which will be flooded with immigrants.  Nor are they likely to  be sending their children to schools which boast “there are 93 languages spoken here” or be unable to get an appointment with their  GP or a hospital consultant quickly because  the population of their area has suddenly soared. . It is also improbable  that they or their children will lose their chance of a decent job to an immigrant or have their pay reduced because immigrants are willing to work for less. The people who will  lose out are the poorer members of society.  They will find themselves competing with immigrants for housing, jobs, schools and medical care.

The stark reality  of mass immigration is that  those who advocate taking in immigrants, most of them from the Third and Second worlds, are stealing from the poorer of their own people.  Let me list what they steal:

  1. Employment, both by taking jobs and by reducing wages .
  2. Housing, both by  taking housing (including large amounts of social housing)  and by forcing up  house prices and private  rents.
  3. School opportunities by both taking places  and  reducing the quality of the schooling  available to the British children through larger classes and  the  extra time and money  devoted to dealing with children who speak inadequate English.
  4. University opportunities, both by immigrants taking places (especially in subjects such as medicine) and by the reduction in the quality of the education offered through  immigrant students having poor English or by being simply  intellectually inadequate.   There is a strong venal  incentive for universities to take   large numbers of such people because, unlike British and EU students,   students from  outside the  EU pay the full cost of their courses.  A large part of the university learning experience depends on student interaction both inside and outside the classroom.  The poorer the quality of students, the less opportunity for the able student to learn because of the inability of inadequate students  to express themselves intelligently.
  5. Healthcare. GPs surgeries are being swamped in many areas because of immigration and anyone who has visited a NHS hospital recently in places such as  London will have been astonished at the number of foreign patients there are  (I speak from personal experience).

More generally, when  immigrants arise in large numbers they invariably form ghettoes.  This means that Britons who live in areas anywhere such ghettoes formed rapidly find that the place with which they are familiar becomes somewhere alien .

If those who advocated mass immigration had to pay a real  price for their parading  of their conscience you may be  assured that their enthusiasm would vanish as quickly as the morning dew.  What should be the price?  Here are a couple of scenarios:

  1. If someone advocates taking in more immigrants they should have to take responsibility for that person permanently. By that I mean not only house them but meet all their reasonable needs such as food, clothing medical and educational costs.   They should have no choice about who they are allocated,  so there will be no choosing a westernised well educated  immigrant or two who speak good English.
  2. Another scenario could be the immigration advocate and their immediate family experiencing the conditions that poorer  Britons experience. This would require that their family home  be  requisitioned and the advocate and his or her family moved to basic  accommodation in an area absolutely brimming over with the diversity such people religiously  extol as being so desirable.  The income of the  adults involved would be reduced to the bare  minimum which the British state says is needed to live. Where there are children of school age , these would be sent to state funded schools which boast “93 languages spoken here”.   If healthcare is required they would  have to use a local GP and the nearest appropriate NHS hospital.

Would it be unfair to include the immediate family in the penalty? Well, consider this, all of the disadvantages which I suggest putting onto those who advocate Britain takes in huge numbers of immigrants have never had the slightest qualms in condemning the poor of their own nation to such conditions.  They would simply be experiencing that which they have not only placed on the white working class but that which they have claimed is positively beneficial to those unfortunate to experience the joy of diversity in its most invasive condition.  Moreover,  how could  children not be included in any punishment meted out to the parents. If a  father or mother is sent to prison or a family loses their breadwinner because their job  disappears as the result of criminal behaviour  the children  suffer. Of course if either scenario  I have outlined was the penalty for advocating  mass immigration there would be precious few if any advocating it.

There  should be a stiff  price for the exercise of a  liberal conscience when it comes to immigration.  Sadly, at present the price is paid not by the eager propagandists for mass immigration but the poorer members of our society.

This entry was posted in Immigration and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Immigration  and the price of a liberal conscience

  1. DICK R says:

    The children must be included ,otherwise there would be little point in the exercise!

  2. Jason says:

    Excellent piece. I wish a few million people would read it to at least get them thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s