The internal illogic of mass immigration

The seething public unrest in Britain today is, behind the “Far Right Thugs” mantra, mainly focused on immigration. It is important to remember that this is only the most obvious cause, rather than the most important one. Economic hardship, loss of freedoms, and the blind arrogance of the political class are equally important, but less easy for ordinary people to express, especially en masse, and even more when the media and politicians are only interested in accusations of racism.

This has been true since Brexit, when a vague idea of national sovereignty and identity was probably the main psychological driver for voters in favour, whilst the areas most strongly pro-Brexit were also those, like Peterborough, most adversely affected by immigration – and hence those most unjustly accused by the cognoscenti of innate racism.

And yet one of the least understood aspects, because apparently a State Secret, is why mass immigration has been happening at all. The increasing numbers may trickle out year by year, the current 700,000 or so net figure of legal immigrants being grudgingly admitted. But although the dramatic increase in the foreign-born population demonstrates that successive governments have been quite deliberate in facilitating this, they have all been elected on promises to cut immigration. Clearly, they are lying. So what are the motives for this doublethink? I’ll try to unpeel the layers as I see them.

The most superficial and publicly promoted layer is the moral argument of providing a welcome to asylum seekers fleeing impossible situations at home. This is what plays best with liberal voters and, especially, Christians. It’s certainly true that many immigrants come from trouble spots, and sadly much of that trouble was caused by Western (including British) interference with local politics, as in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Ukraine and so on. But such people constitute a minority of migrants – maybe even of illegals arriving by boat – and it would seem quite possible to assist the integration of true asylum seekers by a compensatory cut in other immigrants. Instead they are simply added to the total. The lie is given to the whole “compassion” explanation by the massive predominance in the hotels of males of military age over the women and children who are most impacted by political violence at home, but have no power to fight it, even had their menfolk not abandoned them to their fate.

A rather thinner layer of the moral argument is the woke slogan that “diversity is our strength.” A nation formed by two millennia of Christianity is supposed actually to be culturally enriched by having an increasing proportion of largely Muslim men zealous for the (sharia) law. I suppose some of the elites must believe it, but the current unrest, the history of Islam, and indeed the history of civilisation refutes it. This truth is well-discussed everywhere outside the MSM.

A more plausible, and cynical, layer is that immigrants provide a source of (cheap) labour for jobs the native British are no longer willing to do. This opens up a whole can of realpolitik worms. Britain’s reproduction rate is, like most of the West, falling below replacement levels. Simultaneously, our industrial productivity is falling, and because of the fictional basis of our money national debt is spiralling through inflation and borrowing. These factors are rushing us towards national bankruptcy. This is obscured by the false wealth printed by the big financial institutions, but is crystal clear in declining industries, lower wages, spiralling prices and failing public services.

Employers who are already pinched by all this may well benefit by paying peanuts to a Romanian (not a Somalian – most of those are on benefits), and this is patently the case in the agricultural sector and amongst delivery drivers, for example. Cynical politicians and industrialists are, of course, fully aware that cheap immigrant labour encourages a low-wage economy overall. Hence the whole working class struggles economically, whilst profits for incompetent managers increases. The industries themselves are not healthy (think of the NHS, steel, motor manufacturing, or anything else), but the elites do well.

Yet if cheap labour were really the hidden political goal, why would the government now be proposing onerous requirements for employers to ensure that they pay equal wages to immigrants as to their native white workers? Pay equity has shown itself, from the issue of women’s pay, to be a circle that cannot be squared, but it leads to increasing the wage bill, and seldom to levelling down – unless, of course, the aim is to get employers to sack all their white workers in favour of immigrants, which is certainly a move encouraged by DEI policies.

A more global version of this economic argument for immigration, given demographic and productivity decline, is that the only way to prevent national bankruptcy is to substitute quantity for quality. GNP can only increase by increasing the population, if the economy has become uncompetitive, even if none of the workers is prospering. I guess one comparison would be the prosperity of England’s overall economy during the industrial revolution, though life for most individuals was, as Malthus saw, “nasty, brutish and short.” The difference was that, as I recently described, real wages and conditions, though poor, were improving along with a sense of progress and national pride, rather than being a managed decline.

But let’s ask why fertility rates are low, and industries failing, in the first place. Are they really inevitable facts to which abolishing the culture through uncontrolled immigration is the only answer? In fact, it is the whole of official policy that has militated against families with children for many decades now.

Start with the abortion rate, which leapt to 20.5% (250K abortions) in the last available year, 2022. That is one third of the net immigration rate killed each year. These abortions have been increasingly amongst adult women, not teenagers. I’m sure the reasons are complex, but the normalisation of abortion (reinforced by viewing it as a natural right) is at its heart.

The pessimism about the world fostered by our leaders has certainly increased the perception that it is useless to bring children into a world that is boiling, going extinct and imminently a nuclear wasteland, and quite apart from abortion that is going to reduce family size, often to zero. The promotion of LGBTQ+ is now a major demographic factor in native infertility, because it is taught even in state primary schools and enforced by hate-speech legislation. That is only part of the ideological conditioning of sex as a commercial product and political pacifier, as predicted in Brave New World. At the same time as the trans movement negates the existence of women, the latest wave of feminism negates the reality of men except as toxins, so that both sexes would rather retreat into pornography or nihilism than start families.

But such ideologies apart, straight economics works against family life. When I was a child, my mother was stigmatized because she went out to work (for good reasons I won’t go into here). But for eight years after my elder brother was born, my dad’s single wage, as a clerk, was sufficient to keep us alive, to pay a mortgage, and to keep us on the phone, albeit the car and his pipe-smoking had to go. As women were encouraged, by feminist disdain for housewives, to work, the inevitable result was a larger labour maket and hence lower pay. So now even professional couples both need to earn even to pay rent, mortgages being increasingly out of reach. And if you need social housing to support a family, here are your chances as a native-born English:

In the name of equality, tax advantages to families have also been eroded. Childcare being equally unaffordable, it is scarcely surprising that childlessness has increased.

I could tell a similar story about the gradual decline of British industrial productivity if space, and a bit more research, permitted. The deliberate running down of manufacturing in favour of services, the increase in regulation and layers of management, DEI, increased costs from green energy, etc, etc, have, together with the globalism of those owning the means of production, exported many jobs to places like China. As for the jobs that are now considered too hard or demeaning for native Brits, what did Tony Blair and his ilk expect when they arranged for half the population to have “academic” degrees in more or less useless subjects? Those graduates who get jobs in “the system” are overpaid, so that there is no incentive at all to take on work in depressed industries like agriculture.

Here’s a radical thought: what if governments spent as much time and money on tackling the root causes of Britain’s decline as they do on immigration and all the other stuff surrounding it? They have a nudge unit – why couldn’t that be employed to puff the joys of having children instead of vaccines? They have a tax system: why not bias it towards families and away from lifestyles tending towards depopulation? As Bob Dylan sang:

The phone was ringing, it would not stop,
It was President Kennedy calling me up.
He said, “My friend Bob, whadda we need to make the country grow?”
I said, “My friend John – Bridget Bardot,
Anita Ekberg, Sophia Lauren – country’ll grow.”

Actual political action could be more evidenced and nuanced than that, of course . It is being seriously tried in countries like Hungary and Russia. And so are efforts to regenerate home-grown industry, to make wages and benefits fairer, and to steer away from dependance on immigrant labour which damages the social cohesion of the nation.

But inevitably such a thought brings us to the deepest, and most perverse, of the reasons mass immigration is being promoted not just in England, but across the Western world. Tony Blair’s spiteful intention in promoting immigration (how spiteful the left always is) was to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.” Subsequent events show that “the Right” means most of the country’s ordinary people, and “rubbing noses” means totalitarian control and poverty.

The ideology underlying the spite is the globalist idea that the very concept of having a nation to be proud of, to work for, and to replenish through the family is anathema. Under that paradigm, the final goal of mass immigration is not to remedy a demographic and economic decline, but to accelerate it to the point of collapse, even were that to result in Enoch Powell’s much decried “rivers of blood.” Such a collapse would enable the rebuilding of the New World Order by the elite New World Orderers, giving new orders to the world’s remaining proles in the čitties, from their country estates.

That, after all, is all the Far Right thugs are good for.