Will Brexit mean more Asian immigrants?

Curry lobbyist Pasha Khandaker (left) with Tory minister Justine Greening

Curry lobbyist Pasha Khandaker (left) with Tory minister Justine Greening

While many sections of our movement enthusiastically campaigned for ‘Brexit’ and are still celebrating victory in this year’s referendum, a little-discussed subplot of the Brexit drama developed further this week.

For most Brexit voters, immigration was the most important issue at stake in the referendum.  Yet among their fellow Brexiteers were lobby groups such as the Bangladesh Caterers Association, representing Britain’s curry restaurant trade.  They backed Brexit on the basis that reducing immigration from European countries would mean increasing immigration from the Indian subcontinent.

Now the curry trade is further inflaming the debate.  According to the Financial Times, Pasha Khandaker, president of the Bangladesh Caterers Association, has said that he is disappointed by the current rhetoric of Theresa May and her Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who have indicated their aim to reduce annual net migration to below 100,000.

Mr Khandaker sees this as a betrayal, since he believed that Brexit would lead to an “Australian style points system” which would benefit his industry’s case for more Asian immigrants.

H&D would make two points here.  First, this exposes yet again the absurdity of nationalists arguing for an Australian-style immigration system, which every informed person knows has for many years been a disaster for White Australia.

Second: Mr Khandaker shouldn’t be too worried by Tory rhetoric on immigration.  If past experience is any guide, the present Prime Minister (just like her ‘Iron Lady’ predecessor) will talk a great deal about immigration, then preside over a further ethnic transformation of our country.

Even if today’s Tories succeed in cutting net immigration to 100,000, the ethnic complexion of those new arrivals will be a great deal darker than when we were in the EU.  Good news for colour-blind Ukippers perhaps, but a disaster for racial nationalists.

Anti-immigration party’s new gains in German capital

afd-berlin

The anti-immigration party Alternative for Germany (AfD) – which has only existed since 2013 – has won seats for the first time in the regional parliament of the German capital Berlin, polling 14.2%.

This continues a remarkable run of gains for AfD, most notably earlier this month when it pushed Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU into third place in the north-eastern region of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Berlin was always going to be much tougher territory for AfD, so 14.2% here is a very great achievement, even though the party is in fifth place behind the socialist SPD, the CDU, Greens and far-left Die Linke (Left Party). Western Europe’s capital cities are all more left-wing than the rest of their countries, with higher ethnic minority populations: Berlin in particular has a strong left-wing element dating back to the early 20th century.

In the long term perhaps the most significant aspect is that the so-called “grand coalition” – a deal between SPD and CDU (similar to a Labour-Tory pact) – lost so many votes that it will no longer be able to govern the Berlin region.

The SPD (who remained in first place with a reduced vote of 21.6%) will probably now seek a new alliance in Berlin’s regional parliament with the Greens and the Left Party.  In the long term this is very good news for AfD, as it heralds a more honest politics that could undermine Merkel’s coalition with the SPD at national level.

For the first time, a window of opportunity is visible for AfD to achieve some share of power next year: for many conservatives within Merkel’s party will begin asking – if the SPD can form coalitions with the neo-communists in Die Linke, why shouldn’t conservatives look for a coalition with the anti-immigration AfD?

 

One-third of asylum claims come from illegal immigrants or visa overstayers

longtermmigration

The Home Office has officially admitted that one-third of all claims for political asylum are made by illegal immigrants or those who have stayed in the UK beyond their legal visa limit.

Rather than applying for asylum at the earliest opportunity – as one would expect from a genuine refugee – these people only raise the question of asylum when they have been apprehended by immigration officers, often while working illegally.

During the decade from 2004 to 2014, 231,100 asylum applications were received: of these, 83,912 were from people who had been apprehended by immigration staff, either as illegal entrants or as overstayers.

Surprisingly, almost one-quarter of these were nevertheless granted either asylum or an extended leave to remain.

Even Labour MP Keith Vaz, chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, admitted to The Times:

“The very principle of seeking asylum is that you feel persecuted at the time you arrive, not saying you feel persecuted after arriving illegally or for different reasons and then remaining in the country until you are apprehended.”

entryvisas

Official figures for 2015-2016 show that the largest number of UK entry visas granted during 2015-2016 were to visitors from China and India/Pakistan.  There were 92,715 visas granted to Chinese visitors, and 92,327 to India and Pakistan combined.  While there would be many legitimate Chinese tourists, students or business visitors among their total (which was a 22% increase on the previous year), one wonders about the 14,231 visas granted to Nigerians (though this was a 25% decrease on the previous year, partly because of a crackdown on illegals).

By contrast far smaller numbers of visas (whether for tourism, study or work) were granted to travellers from White countries: 21,605 to Australians; 34,276 to visitors from the USA;

In 2014 an undercover BBC investigation revealed widespread abuse of the student visa system.

Another Dodgy Dossier

Yes to Europe

Guest column by Frederick Dixson

How could anyone vote to leave the European Union now that we know that we will all be £4,300 a year better off by 2030 if we stay in? Except, of course, that we will all be better off anyway even if we leave, just by not quite as much!  All of that is assuming that economic growth continues at a predictable rate until 2030. And in economics nothing is predictable. If the Treasury is trying to look ahead fourteen years to 2030, try instead to look back fourteen years to 2002 and ask yourself how many economists then predicted the crash of 2008 – answer, none.

It’s not just dodgy forecasts that we can pick up from the Treasury’s document. There are also all those little things which the Treasury chose to ignore or brush aside but which will have quite a significant, and positive, effect should we choose to leave. To mention a few of those positive things; freedom from regulation, freedom to trade with the rest of the world, freedom from having to pay millions of pounds in tribute to the EU every day, freedom from the colossal cost to our infrastructure (schools, housing, transport, NHS) of mass immigration.

With mass immigration I come to the issue which, I suspect, is the real concern of readers of Heritage and Destiny. It is beyond belief that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a government which is pledged to reduce mass immigration to the tens of thousands, has predicated much of his strategy for economic growth on continuing mass immigration adding a further 3.3 million EU migrants to our population by 2030! This implies 235,000 EU migrants per annum and does not include those from outside the EU, nor births to all the newcomers and to those “Non White British” already living here.

Unlikely allies for Brexit: George Galloway and Nigel Farage

Unlikely allies for Brexit: George Galloway and Nigel Farage

So here are some facts – not forecasts because the implications are obvious – of my own. Excluding the other countries of the United Kingdom whose populations are more or less stable and which attract little immigration, the population of England at the census of 2011 was 53 million of whom 42 million (80%) declared themselves to be White British. (It may be of interest to note that the population of England according to the census of 1951 was then 42 million, almost all White British). The 20% who are not White British have 35% of the children born annually in England, adding around 240,000 to their number every year. Annual net immigration, excluding British citizens returning to the UK after a spell abroad, is now running at 363000. So the total annual increase in the Non White British population is in the order of 600,000, a figure which can only go up as children are born to the future new arrivals. Given these figures it is easy to see how the Office for National Statistics has calculated that White British people will be a minority among under 18s by 2037, just 21 years from now.

Our national identity is being ground out of existence and Englishmen such as George Osborne and David Cameron are throwing the entire government machine into hastening the process. They must be thwarted.

Enoch Powell’s 1968 warning on immigration

In the March 2016 issue of Heritage and Destiny we feature an article on Ulster by Enoch Powell – an article which was first commissioned, then suppressed by Mrs Thatcher’s government, which was already involved in pursuing a treacherous deal with the IRA.

Enoch Powell served as Ulster Unionist MP for South Down from 1974 to 1987, having previously been a senior Conservative politician until he was forced out of the Tory party for his 1968 speech on immigration.

This speech – delivered to Birmingham’s Conservative Association on April 20th 1968 – became known as the “rivers of blood” speech (though that phrase never appears), because Powell had quoted lines from the Roman poet Virgil, who wrote of the Sibyl of Cumae (a prophetic priestess) warning the Trojan hero Aeneas that she sees a vision of the River Tiber (on which Aeneas is about to found Rome) “foaming with much blood”. (Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno).  The line appears in Book VI, Line 87 of Virgil’s Aeneid.

There follows the complete text of Powell’s 1968 speech:

Enoch Powell was sacked from the Conservative shadow cabinet in 1968 for warning against britain's racial transformation. Margaret Thatcher refused to back him and kept her job.

Enoch Powell was sacked from the Conservative shadow cabinet in 1968 for warning against Britain’s racial transformation.

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase.

Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

schools - nonwhites

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.”

This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.

They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

Powell And Farmer

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week.
“She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.
“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:
‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

Sikhs - Parliament - protest

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

A march to the Home Office in 1972 by Smithfield meat porters protesting at the admission of more than 27,000 Asian immigrants from Uganda.

A march to the Home Office in 1972 by Smithfield meat porters protesting at the admission of more than 27,000 Asian immigrants from Uganda.

 

National Front victory in Dover

Around 200 nationalists attended a very well organised National Front demonstration in Dover against the tide of immigration, which has already created a crisis across Europe and yet again threatens our shores.

NF demonstrators defeated the red rabble in Dover yesterday

NF demonstrators defeated the red rabble in Dover yesterday

Anti-fascist thugs attempted their usual tactics of violent disruption, but this time the forces of red reaction were decisively defeated on the streets of Dover by the NF and allied nationalists from various groups.

Kent Police failed to secure the streets of Dover, so NF activists did the job themselves – very effectively!!!

Congratulations to the National Front and all brave patriots who turned out in Dover yesterday.

Richard Edmonds addresses the NF's anti-immigration demo in Dover yesterday

Richard Edmonds addresses the NF’s anti-immigration demo in Dover yesterday

kent nf banner

 

One of the defeated “anti-fascists” posted this report to an anarchist forum:

We can’t kid around or attempt to save face, or obscure the truth for propaganda purposes, AFN (Anti-Fascist Network) were destroyed in Dover today. Six Comrades went to hospital, and if wasn’t for the police it would have been a lot more. We were outnumbered and outgunned by the Fascists, who were up for a fight from moment one, and had the sufficient mix of booze and steroids to be essentially unstoppable.

I did not think it had to be impressed on people the importance of opposing genuine white nationalists making a demonstration at an immigration detention centre, but as 3 half empty coaches left from London it was clear I was wrong.

Today was a massive victory for the far right, for the ones on the street and the ones off it. Those who were there today felt the rush of victory for the first time in years, and for those on the far right that have been convinced that there is no point to street demonstrations, today will have changed this for many of them.

I am afraid today, that within the context of the ”migrant crisis”, Dover will mark a real resurgence in far right street politics. A street filled with fascists will never be one that is safe for anyone, especially those without white skin.

From this moment on we all must take all fascist demonstrations extremely seriously, and we need everyone that is physically able to attend all future demonstrations. If you are truly in ”Solidarity with Refugees” then you need to be stopping fascists from going to immigrant detention centres, not walking around London. Fascism, never again!”

I got fucking pelted with bricks in a carpark by Nazis as a 100,000 smug liberals marched through London, fucking disgusting.

UKIP MP prepares leadership bid with pro-immigration speech

There may be trouble ahead: Douglas Carswell (left) is preparing a bid for the leadership of UKIP, with a speech arguing the benefits of immigration!

 

Douglas Carswell, the former Tory MP who defected to UKIP last year and easily won re-election under his new party label at the Clacton by-election, has long been known for his ultra-liberal views on immigration.

While most UKIP voters believe the party is anti-immigration, Carswell is in the classical liberal tradition.  He believes in a far less regulated form of capitalism, with a much smaller role for the state and a reduced, semi-privatised National Health Service.

In Carswell’s world-view, immigrants are beneficial because they allow international business to move labour around just as they move capital.  An influx of immigrants into the labour market allows employers to pay lower wages, whether for skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled workers.

So it was no surprise to see Douglas Carswell write a pro-immigration article for yesterday’s Times, and then speak last night to a left-wing think tank on a pro-immigration theme.

In his speech last night, Carswell spelled out his colour-blind approach, which amounts to favouring non-white immigrants over Europeans:

“Perhaps the greatest failing of the immigration system is that it discriminates against precisely the sort of people that, in a world of increasing labour mobility, we might actually want to attract.

“Since 400 million EU citizens have a right to come, lowering immigration numbers means making it harder for non-EU people to enter the UK.  Thus do we prioritise an EU citizen with a criminal record over someone with a doctorate from India or Singapore. It makes no sense.”

While endorsing Enoch Powell’s pro-market ideology, Carswell denounced Powell’s most famous speech, his April 1968 warning against the consequences of non-white immigration:

“Britain today is more at ease with the multi-ethnic society that we have become than once seemed imaginable – and not just to Enoch Powell.  Like many before and since, Powell underestimated the ability of a free society to adapt.”

Toby Young of the Daily Telegraph is among several commentators who believe that Carswell is preparing a leadership bid to challenge Nigel Farage after the general election  especially if (as is quite possible) Carswell retains his Clacton seat but Farage fails to be elected MP for South Thanet.

 

UK border controls in chaos

New data obtained by the Sunday Telegraph from the Home Office under the Freedom of Information Act shows that thousands of illegal immigrants are disappearing through the UK’s inadequate border control system every year.

Particular weak points in the system include the Eurostar train service from Lille, and UK ports handling coach loads of visitors.

During the past year, the newly released official figures confirm that 3,527 immigrants absconded after failing border checks: of these only 846 were later found.  This of course means that almost 2,700 illegal immigrants remained at large even after having once been caught!

The above figures clearly do not include those illegal immigrants who managed to slip through the net without being caught at all, nor does it include asylum seekers, bogus or otherwise.

With the system in such chaos, the UK’s borders remain vulnerable to potential terrorists, though in any case such cases are usually recruited from within ‘British’ ethnic minority groups.

While large ethnic minorities remain in Britain’s towns and cities, illegal immigrants will easily find a pool of similar types among whom to hide, and with whom to find work.  A multi-ethnic Britain is inevitably a haven for illegal immigrants, including terrorists.

More immigration hypocrisy from both Labour and Littlejohn

Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn has a good rant this week at senior New Labour politicians of the Blair era, including successive Home Secretaries Jack Straw and David Blunkett.  Like many of his ilk, Straw has recently taken to apologising for New Labour’s “mistake” of allowing vastly increased immigration after they came to power in 1997.

Littlejohn correctly points out that this was no mistake: it was a deliberate anti-English policy, as revealed by former Blair adviser Andrew Neather back in 2009.

But the Mail columnist can’t be let off the hook too easily in his effort to score party political points against Labour.  The ethnic transformation of Britain was not a consequence of the Blair years, it was an accomplished fact well before the 1997 Labour landslide.

New Labour’s main contribution to multiculturalism was to let in millions of Eastern Europeans, mainly from Poland and the Ukraine but increasingly also from other former Soviet bloc countries.  Ironically this has resulted in many inner city areas of England becoming whiter, as these new immigrants often moved into areas that had been dominated by blacks and Asians who had arrived in earlier waves of immigration!

And that of course is the point: the turning point in the transformation of Britain was not Tony Blair’s arrival in Downing Street, but the catastrophic European civil war (better known as the Second World War) of 1939-45.  Britain’s supposed ‘victory’ in that war not only bankrupted our national finances and liquidated our Empire, it discredited the very notion of racial nationalism.  Anyone even daring to mention racial questions after 1945 could be demonised by opponents deploying the shadow of the legendary gas chambers to silence debate.

Britain started to become a multiracial country with the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948, and the process continued throughout the postwar decades.  During most of this time – Richard Littlejohn should note – the Conservative Party was in government.

Nevertheless, the fact that even a semi-honest discussion of immigration is now beginning should certainly be welcomed.  This week saw a key contribution to that long overdue debate with the publication of a book by the Oxford University economist Prof. Paul Collier – Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century.

The book will be reviewed in the New Year by Heritage and Destiny.  In the meantime readers can catch up with a lecture by Prof. Collier given at the LSE earlier this month.  Once you cut through the inevitable politically correct introductions, you will hear that even the academic establishment is having to reassess its arguments.

Labour leader sacks black shadow minister in immigration row

Diane Abbott (centre) as one of the five candidates for Labour leader in 2010. She has now been sacked by the winner of that contest, Ed Miliband (second left).

Labour leader Ed Miliband (who according to opinion polls is likely to be the next British prime minister) has sacked his party’s most prominent black face, Diane Abbott.

Ms Abbott has responded by denouncing her party’s immigration policy:

I have long despaired of the downward spiral of Labour’s rhetoric on immigration. For instance we should have come out against the ‘immigrants go home’ van far more quickly and more firmly than we did. Unfortunately the people around Miliband are terrified by the polling on immigration and have convinced him that we have to move right on the issue. My settled view is that there no votes for the Labour party in pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment.

The irony of Mr Miliband’s attempts to develop a populist immigration policy will not be lost on Heritage and Destiny readers, though readers of the Daily Mail might be more confused!  Last week the Mail caused nationwide controversy by attacking the Labour leader’s Marxist father Ralph Miliband as anti-British.  They might have done better to focus their exposé on the future PM’s grandfather Sam Miliband, who really was a pro-Soviet traitor, acting as an agent for Trotsky’s invading Red Army and as a consequence having to flee his native Poland.

Heritage and Destiny examined the Miliband family’s background as Marxist immigrants in this online article three years ago.

Diane Abbott’s main agenda is probably now to build a campaign to become Labour candidate for Mayor of London in 2016.  As a consequence of our capital city’s ethnic transformation, it is now very likely that the Labour candidate will be non-white.  Former Ken Livingstone aide Atma Singh has already shown an interest, though he has no chance of winning (partly because of his far left background, partly because Sikhs are too small an ethnic voting block).  The party leadership might favour Sadiq Khan, a Pakistani Muslim lawyer who is presently Shadow Lord Chancellor in Miliband’s frontbench team.  A potential Afro-Caribbean rival to Diane Abbott is David Lammy, briefly a junior minister in Gordon Brown’s government, whose astounding erudition was exemplified by his hilarious error during the recent papal election.  While the half-Nigerian Chuka Umunna might have the best chance of winning, but probably has his eye on a bigger prize as a possible future Labour leader.

Rising talent in Ed Miliband’s Labour Party (left to right): Chuka Umunna, half-Nigerian Shadow Business Secretary; Louise Baldock, bisexual activist, Liverpool councillor, and likely next MP for Stockton South; Luciana Berger, former Director of Labour Friends of Israel, newly promoted to Shadow Public Health Minister in place of the sacked Diane Abbott.

Speaking of Mr Umunna (who on the British side of his family is the grandson of wartime MI5 interrogator and postwar judge Sir Helenus ‘Buster’ Milmo), his former girlfriend Luciana Berger was one of the winners in the Labour reshuffle, promoted to take the sacked Diane Abbott’s place as shadow public health minister.

Ms Berger is the former Director of Labour Friends of Israel. Her great-uncle was Manny Shinwell, who was a loyal friend of Zionist terror groups even while serving as Secretary of State for War in the 1940s.  Inevitably he was rewarded by a peerage, living to the age of 101 as Lord Shinwell of Easington.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter