Excessive Immigration
Page 27
19
Are There Any Solutions?
There is no one solution. Put this question to ISIS members and the answer is simple — the solution is to kill those who disagree with you, who disobey Quranic injunctions and who get in the way of an Islamic caliphate. Some better established immigrants from the ex-colonies may repeat the adage ‘we are here because you were over there’ and in effect tell the rest of us to suck it up. Moderate anti-racists call for greater understanding and empathy from whites (Tesfaye, 2017). For the impassioned xenophilic leftists the only real problem is the existence of those they consider xenophobes. The most far-left and candid among them would perhaps love to see all ‘racists’ criminalised, deported or, better, die. The Guardian’s ‘Comment is free’ section is always full of ‘Remainers’ who look forward to the deaths of Brexiters who are believed to be mainly old, bigoted and stupid. As the liberal youth become ascendant, multiculturalism will simply be more and more accepted. This is to ignore the problems of illiberal Muslims and rising population, of course. But don’t worry — when a renewed, energised far-left Labour Party gets into power, they will establish universal fairness, affirmative action, freedom from hate, relaxed borders, and free public services for all.
One trick for the left, so far seemingly missed, is to add to the list of the allegedly oppressed, aggrieved, endangered groups of BAME, LGBTI, women, the religious and the disabled. Muslims are protected against Islamophobia because their collective religious conscience must be respected. The Roma, Travellers, must be protected because they are a recognised ethnic group. Muslims genuinely regard the entire world as Allah’s, just as Roma apparently believe it is their ethnic right to constantly migrate and be accommodated anywhere. These groups do not have to ‘behave themselves’ by adapting to the cultures into which they move, because their identity is paramount. Now, all that has to happen to add global migrants to this list is for them to bid to elevate their circumstances and preferences to the status of religion or ethnicity: they come to be seen as Gaia-worshippers, say, united by a transnational ethnic identity. ‘At some point, humanity will see a movement for migrants’ rights, similar to the ones for women, African Americans and gay people’, proclaims the Pakistani-British novelist Mohsin Hamid (Rasmussen, 2017). In Hamid’s view, this will lead to a Brazilian-style superdiversity generating better food, better music, and better sex. Shivani (2017) likens immigrant detention centres to concentration camps, sees American citizenship as a ‘hypernationalist project’, and deems the remedy to be unbounded migration as a human right. What such thinkers do not reckon with, however, is the rights of those with sincere beliefs in atheism, nation states, and homogeneity: there may be trouble ahead.
The solution for the PC-CM-SJW coalition is to carry on their wars of attrition. This drip-drip campaign on many fronts relentlessly looks for, invents, or exaggerates, instances of alleged racism, Islamophobia, sexism, homophobia, etc. wherever they can be found. Their arsenal includes everything from microaggressions to institutional racism, Holocaust, slavery and colonialism commemorations, statistics suggesting that discrimination is widespread in education and employment, calls for affirmative action/positive discrimination, race-sensitive quotas for everything, laments that nothing as improved for decades, stoking white guilt, shaming whites into losing their jobs, creating a phantom of white supremacist patriarchal capitalism, and so on. The Boston Globe, for example, recently ran an ethnomasochistic series asking why, on the basis of a national US survey, the ostensibly liberal city of Boston is so unwelcoming to blacks (Johnson et al., 2017). Questions are not put in such a debate that might explain this statistic in any other way than racist evil. Closer to home, Akbar (2017) complains that the British publishing industry is culpably and ‘hideously middle-class and white’, while ignoring the fact that it is also predominantly female and left-wing. The implied racism will soon shame the industry into some form of positive discrimination that is at odds with natural meritocracy. Bowcott (2017) writes disingenuously of ‘hopes for greater diversity’ in the British legal system, as two vacancies appear for the supreme court, which has had only two women and no BAME representatives in its ranks of twelve. Such pressure mounts to the point at which the supreme court selection panel will of course be found guilty of racism if they do not appoint a BAME person even if she or he is not as good as a white one. Appointment ads of this kind have to make noble statements about diversity, which then direct selectors towards making BAME appointments. Objections to all these supposedly egalitarian and ‘anti-racist initiatives’ are themselves held up as racist. Shrill egalitarian ideology silences any arguments for non-discriminatory meritocracy. The SJW solution, then, is to keep at it, keep whittling away at the privileged white male bastards.
For those of us concerned about mass immigration, multiculturalism, an increase in ghettoised British society with heightened intercultural tensions, and an overcrowded Britain, the problems can look bleak. We know there is no final solution, that segregation doesn’t work, separate white and black ethno-states probably have little chance of forming, and repatriation is a non-starter, but the tinderbox tolerance that prevails is also no solution. Many are already saying that it’s too late to halt or slow down immigration, and many believe that an Islamicised UK within Eurabia is inevitable within decades. Touted solutions like ‘sending them home’ are seen as immoral and impractical, with ‘let them all in’ probably being a slightly more popular sentiment. Even legitimate attempts to deport foreign criminals and illegal immigrants frequently fail as those concerned utilise every human rights law to resist repatriation, and open-borders xenophiles invariably cry racism. Stopping annual surges of refugees and pseudo-refugees from Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere appears impossible as human rights groups demand safe entry for all into Europe, and decry all efforts to halt entry. So-called far-right groups like the English Defence League mount their own initiatives in places like Calais, aimed at trying to verbally dissuade migrants from attempting to get into the UK.
Donald Trump’s proposed wall to deter illegal Mexican immigration is decried by xenophiles, and cases of families split by immigration law are used to oppose borders altogether. But the USA is not the UK, it is much larger, with a different history, demographics and needs; and many solutions tried there will not necessarily work here (Mac Donald, 2007; NumbersUSA, 2017). Norway, with a much smaller population than the UK (5,400,000), but also not in the EU, has a very firm policy on dealing with immigrants. Partly because it is next to immigration-problematic Sweden and aware of the threat, Norway’s right-wing government decided to limit immigration to genuine refugees, to impose cultural norms of ‘Norwegian values’, and to deport those not meeting its requirements. It also supports many in refugee camps in the Middle East but otherwise keeps to a strong long-term policy to safeguard national security and preserve prosperity (Nelson, 2017). Israel’s tough measures include offering $3,500 and an air ticket to African migrants to leave within a tight timeframe, lest they face receiving far less money, or imprisonment. In this county whose population is an estimated 8.5 million, there are 60,000 immigrants, 38,000 of whom are considered illegal (Davies, 2018). Such measures might have some success in Britain but our demographics are very different, opposition from the human rights lobby is strong, and it is probably too late. Successive British governments also appear to suffer from ambivalence, evasiveness, lack of political will, and incompetency in border control (www.parliament.uk, 2017; Barrett, 2016; NAO, 2017).
I have glossed over the topic of repatriation and would not endorse it as a serious solution. However, we should at least pause to consider the example provided by Marcus Garvey, the Jamaican journalist, entrepreneur and activist who in the early 20th century promoted the pan-African movement, or fundamentalist Africanism, also known as Garveyism. As well as pushing for improvements in the lives of black Americans, Garvey called for American Africans and other members of the black diaspora to return to Africa in orde
r to reclaim their heritage and lift the fortunes of Africa. Resettlement in Liberia was one of his projects (Moses, 1998). He attracted many criticisms from the likes of W. E. B. Du Bois, who considered him to be reinforcing the principles of white supremacy, and his talks with the KKK seemed to confirm this. There is a logical case for African diaspora peoples voluntarily to return to Africa (and as Garvey urged, for all European colonialists to vacate Africa), also buoyed up by the argument that gifted African-heritage people should help to build up Africa rather than deserting it. Rastafarianism too has advocated a return to Africa as the promised land. But as some black Americans reasonably ask, ‘Should all 44 million of us move back to Africa?’ (Wilson, 2016). Unfortunately, given today’s perceived norms of African poverty, disease and corruption, relatively few wish to take this course of action, even despite the success of the novel Roots published in 1976, which stimulated great interest in African heritage issues. Instead, aggrieved blacks still prefer the cold, grey, rainy, capitalism-besotted, racist, bigoted, small crowded islands of Britain to the vast sunny lands of their ancestry.
Consider the most optimistic but false solution currently promoted. The Tory government, recognising its poor support among immigrant communities, has launched its Race Disparity Audit’s findings to be disseminated on the new Ethnicity Facts and Figures website. Already we hear the well-known evidence repeated that the BAME community is disproportionately excluded from school, arrested and imprisoned, do not own their own homes, and have higher unemployment rates. Theresa May, the Prime Minister, suggests that we must ‘explain or change’ these disparities (Asthana & Bengtsson, 2017; Martin, 2017). The heavy inference is that discrimination (unconscious or otherwise) drives such disparities and positive discrimination is the solution. But what if anyone dared to try to explain these disparities in ways that were not focused on white discrimination against blacks? Almost certainly they would quickly be accused of racism. Indeed, Omar Khan of the Runnymede Trust has already warned, ‘Only cranks and trolls can dispute the extent of racial inequalities in Britain’ (Simons, 2017). There may be some areas in which targeted positive encouragement of some immigrant communities might justly be applied. But there are also unfortunate opportunities here for wasting money, encouraging further dependency, stirring up resentment, and making little real progress. Research on BAME matters will achieve little if glaring aspects of ethnic and cultural differences are left unaddressed. Fudging differences between achievement levels between distinct ethnic groups is one of the most glaring problems. Chinese school pupils excel, for example, while Gipsy and Traveller pupils do very poorly, as the Audit shows. Note too that race and ethnicity remain confused terms in this literature, and the ‘white working class’ is sometimes included as one of the categories.
A serious and comprehensive attempt to analyse the problem of immigration and integration was made in the Casey review (Casey, 2016). This gathered information from multiple sources, confirmed much that was already known, and included some hard to confront issues. Casey concluded that although many inequities are evident, the Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim communities are particularly problematic for remaining segregated, women especially being excluded from mainstream society by cultural traditions, failure to learn English, to work, and to integrate with others. Up to 32% of Muslims living in Britain refuse to condemn people using violence against those who ‘mock the Prophet’ (Casey, 2106). Block voting and electoral fraud in Biraderi communities were noted. Spokespeople from those communities were very critical of these conclusions. Casey also emphasised rising hate crimes, without however noting the significant differences between verbally unpleasant and physically violent cases. She said the far-right ‘milk it’ whenever an Islamist terror incident occurs, and they are ‘nasty, horrible racist people who have no place in our society’. More should also be done, the review asserts, to facilitate resilience, intercultural meetings, and opportunities for employment and promotion. Immigrants should be expected to learn English, and learn about British law, history and values, a requirement that might run contrary to the agenda of militant black anti-colonialists in particular, who seek to subvert the educational curriculum. Interestingly, this report acknowledged ‘problems being ducked, swept under the carpet or allowed to fester’. Casey notes that ‘destroying evidence of perpetrator ethnicity’ occurred in Rotherham. Both Islamists and far-right groups were condemned: ‘we all have a responsibility to counteract hate in any form’. The review also contains a lot of officially optimistic rhetoric and the assumption that essentially everyone is equal and Britain can and will be united. Although high immigration levels are a done deal (and continuing), more work is needed to achieve integration, which all good citizens want to help with — this is, I think, the overall constructive, but unrealistic tone.
Is there anywhere else we can look for possible solutions? How about Brazil, a huge country with a buoyant economy, a population of 210 million and a great mix of races? It is, incidentally, known as biologically megadiverse, and is also home to dozens of still uncontacted human tribes. In spite of having imported more slaves than any other country, and enduring colonialism from 1500 to 1822, one upside of the Brazilian story is that indigenous Amerindians, white Portugese, Africans and others have interbred for centuries, and a third of marriages today are interracial, so that offensive and violent racism as we know it barely exists (Nolen, 2015). Indeed, the Brazilian Constitution contains harsh penalties for racism. Pregnant women often cannot even know what colour their baby will be. Brazil’s racial democracy was said to be colour blind, or in fact race blind, since citizens note their perceived colour on census forms. The country is fairly solidly Christian, with Muslims comprising only 0.1% of the population. It has large reserves of natural resources and a sizeable middle class. The downside is that an aesthetic and economic colour hierarchy exists, a pigmentocracy, with whites on top, then brown (pardo), with blacks at the bottom. Genetic studies suggest that white European ancestry accounts for 62% of Brazil’s heritage, but about 48% are actually recorded as white Brazilians. Affectionate slang terms are used between Brazilians, for example cabelo ruim (bad hair) for coiled African hair; neguinha (little dark one); and macaca (monkey, to denote dark skin colour). With the abolition of slavery in 1888, the Brazilian government set about encouraging immigration of white Europeans, a policy with the deliberate intention to embranqecer, or whiten the population. Violent crime rates are very high, as is imprisonment of blacks, 2016 seeing over 4,000 violent deaths, seven out of ten victims being black and mostly young. The average overall lifespan is 73. Only in the last 20 years has a national conversation begun on black inequality, affirmative action and possible reparations for slavery. But Brazil’s history and characteristics are not those of the USA or UK, and no ready-made solutions can be imported.
Trying to slow down immigration into the UK appears to be a doomed project. There are now thought to be 215 million migrants worldwide, or 3% of world population (Lazaridis, 2015). Or a 2017 UN figure is put at 258 million, with the high-income countries hosting 165 million of these (Associated Press, 2017). What proportion of these are displaced by war, discrimination, poverty and disease, and what is due to nomadic preferences, economic restlessness and opportunism, and flight from criminal prosecutions, is impossible to say. Quite naturally, people move towards those countries where there is a mixture of peace, tolerance, affluence and ease of entry (even Canada or Sweden in all their coldness being very acceptable). It is easy to see why so many Russian and Thai women seek marriage partners in Britain. We have as yet no way of knowing what effect international gay marriage will have on immigration. Legally or illegally, migrants will attempt entry to Europe because it is so close to northern Africa and the Middle East. The UK is one of the most popular end destinations for many reasons, and birth rates of immigrants are rapidly increasing its population (Coleman, 2016). Projections are that Britain’s population will increase to over 80 million by 2060 and whites will b
e a minority.
What about making an impact on the existing population of the UK that was not born here or that maintains un-British customs and beliefs? In other words, can integration be achieved? Despite efforts in many European countries to welcome, provide resources to, educate and offer intensive teaching of the host the country’s language to them, many immigrants fail to adapt, and too often stay within closed communities, even emphasising their differences (Statham & Tillie, 2017). And too often SJWs attack so-called xenophobes for even expecting anything like integration — why should immigrants surrender any of their original culture? is then their war cry. Anything suggested about ‘British values’ is always seized upon by so-called progressives as indefinable and regressive. Occasional publicity aimed at deterring illegal immigrants in the UK is picked up by the liberal media as ugly and offensive. When Donald Trump declared that he would enforce border controls against Mexicans by building a wall, or that he would revoke Obama’s DACA programme (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) he was vilified, and yet if you have borders that migrants continue to breach in large numbers, how will you stop them? When Trump tried to instigate a temporary travel ban against selected Muslim countries in order to attempt to slow down the spread of terrorism, again he was vilified. Currently the ‘build bridges not walls’ meme is being pushed by Pope Francis among others; and Francis has even declared hostility towards migrants a sin (Kington, 2018). The image of the Berlin Wall and its fall is often employed as a device to mock the principle of border controls. Oversensitivity to the feelings of others — pathological altruism — underpins this avoidance of enforcing immigration control. The actions of aid workers illegally smuggling migrants across borders in Europe have been referred to as ‘misguided humanitarianism’.