We Are Tired of the Lies About Mass Immigration
This Week In Media | 11th - 18th August, 2024
This week, GB News’ political correspondent Christopher Hope interviewed self-proclaimed progressive Priti Patel. The former Home Secretary and Conservative Party leadership contender refused to apologise for her role in passing laws which instigated three years of unprecedented mass immigration.
I begin this week’s newsletter with this interview, to frame my work this week: refuting the lies concerning the costs, crimes, and cultural changes caused by mass immigration.
To address Patel’s claims that immigration, under her watch, increased due to humanitarian visas provided to Ukrainian and Hong Kong refugees, and a necessary influx of doctors, nurses, and short-stay students:
The record immigration of 2020 - 2022 was not primarily driven by Hong Kong and Ukrainian refugees.
In 2021, total legal immigration was 942,000. 80% of these migrants were non-EU. The majority were students: 47%. Many of these have disappeared into the cash-only Deliveroo economy, as leadership rival Robert Jenrick's Centre for Policy Studies paper revealed. This is possible since Boris Johnson repealed a 2012 law by Home Secretary Theresa May forcing foreign students to leave the UK four months after finishing their degree.
In 2022, total migration was 1.2 million; net 764,000. Humanitarian arrivals dropped by 10%, but overall numbers increased. 253,000 of these new arrivals are Indian — who, last I checked, weren’t fleeing war. A record 484,000 visas were issued for students -- including 134,000 visas for student dependents.
In 2023, net migration decreased to a still-eyewatering 685,000 — likely to be revised up. A ban on student dependents halved forecasts from 450,000 to 200,000. Dependent applications have fallen 79 per cent since January 2024.
So, no, world-historical record levels of net migration are not caused by humanitarian crises in Hong Kong and Ukraine. They were caused by policy choices by Boris Johnson and Priti Patel.
Thousands of Health and Social Care visas did not translate to filled vacancies. Miriam Cates MP told Parliament that, of the 70,000 visas given out in July 2022 - 2023, only 11,000 positions were filled. 350,000 total were given out in 2023. We don't yet have the numbers published on how many positions were filled.
Although health and social care visa applications have fallen 76 per cent since January 2024, due to a ban on bringing dependents, skilled worker visa applications have risen by 50 per cent in the same four-month period — nullifying the restrictions.
Only 15 per cent of non-EU arrivals in the last five years came principally to work.
Patel set the salary threshold at £25,600 — lower than the average salary in the UK.
In radically changing the composition of migrants, from 80% EU pre-pandemic, to 80% non-EU, the Conservatives made immigration a net fiscal drain. As seen from studies in the Netherlands and Denmark, Indian (250,000), Nigerian (141,000), or MENAPT (from the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, and Turkey) immigrants and their descendants are *never* average net tax contributors.
In fact, they were an annual fiscal drain of €17 billion (€8000 per person)
As such, the UK’s GDP per capita growth has stagnated — despite the foreign-born share of the workforce growing to 21 per cent.
Employment has grown by 3.6 million since 2011, but 74 per cent of this is due to immigrant labour. All of the growth in private sector employments between December 2019 - 2023 was due to non-EU arrivals.
Despite this, as Neil O'Brien MP notes, we see a real-term decline in the median earnings of Indian and Nigerian nationals aged 22 to 40 — meaning more migrants leads to a diminished GDP per capita for the migrants themselves, as well as fewer employment opportunities for natives.
Immigration was not wanted. It was not needed. It has been an economic and cultural detriment to Britain. And the blame lies with Priti Patel.
If Priti thinks this will win over the majority of Conservative and Reform voters who are opposed to mass immigration, she is sorely mistaken.
It’s Not Just Economics…
This week on the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters, we were joined by Lauren Chen and Raw Egg Nationalist, to discuss who exactly is behind the recent rise in “Men” committing acts of violent crime.
The Times reported this week that ‘violent attacks against women and girls on Britain’s railways has increased by more than 50 per cent over the past two years’ — since 2021.
This was the epicentre of the waves of non-European migration — from nations where the worth of a woman or child is purely instrumental to the power or pleasure of the most violent man. We see, as I covered in the above segment, a long list of news stories proving that new arrivals and their second-generation offspring are the disproportionate per-capita culprits of violent crimes — including murder, rape, assault, and robbery.
We would see this reflected in the crime statistics, except the Office for National Statistics, Crown Prosecution Service, Home Office, and Ministry of Justice conduct a conspiracy of silence by refusing to publish a breakdown of crimes committed by ethnicity or national origin.
Instead, we may only infer how different peoples — encouraged to practice their native cultures by British police and politicians — might behave by looking at other countries’ statistics.
In Denmark, non-natives are 2.5 times more likely to commit violent crimes than native Danes.
The United States’ Global Organised Crime Index tool shows the UK was the highest in Western Europe, and second in all of Europe, for crimes committed by foreign actors in 2023.
And, as we see with economic contributions in Scandinavian countries, these stats do not improve with the second-generation immigrants, born to immigrant parents in the host countries. So, integration has failed: as it did in the Southport stabbings, the 7/7 Bombings, the recent Southend machete riots, and countless other instances.
Despite this, Labour insists on “equitably” dispersing men, whose first action is to illegally enter this country on dinghies, across the country in social housing and taxpayer-funder rental accommodation.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Levelling Up, Angela Rayner, has said ‘Every borough in the UK will be required to take their “fair share” of asylum seekers under a Labour government’.
Labour’s plan is twofold:
To procure thousands of private rental properties across the country, using taxpayer funds, to put up illegal migrants at the native population’s expense.
To build more social housing, in replications of the hideous Milton Keynes across the green belt and countryside, rather than stockpiling the third-world insurgents in barges, barracks, and hotels.
In anticipation of this, Labour repealed a ban on convicted terrorists accessing social housing — meaning we’ll all have our taxes increased by Rachel Reeves to pay for the bed and board of men who want to massacre us.
(Unsurprising, given the taxpayer already paid for the bomb equipment used at Manchester Arena.)
But even this betrayal is not enough for Labour.
Refusing to admit fault in importing thousands of foreign sex criminals, and for covering up the Islamic grooming gangs operating for decades in British towns and cities, Labour instead seeks to use counter-terrorism legislation to ‘tackle the threat posed by extremist ideologies’, and censor and charge influencers like Andrew Tate as scapegoats for ‘extreme misogyny’.
They will do anything except admit that their false anthropology of fundamental human sameness has resulted in avoidable harm being inflicted on children. There is no upper limit to the number of women and girls who Labour (and the Conservatives, remade in their image) will put at risk of murder and rape ‘for the good of Diversity’.
And Who Are We To Complain?
This week in The Critic, I expounded upon my recent clash with Siôn Simon on GB News, after Foreign Secretary and world-renowned idiot David Lammy condescended to those with an ancestral connection to England stretching back centuries by telling them that they are the ones who must integrate.
Integrate into what, you ask?
Labour, and liberals in media and academia, have redefined Britain as an ideological project. In the mould of America since JFK, Britain is now a nation settled by immigrants, and a landmass in which “British values” are practised. Despite the geographically-particular prefix, those values are universal, liberal, pluralistic, tolerant, multicultural, and embodied by the institutions which espouse them. They are not the property or invention of a particular people. One need only buy into “British values” to be British.
This revolutionary reconstitution of what it means to be British dislodges the identity from ethnicity, and proclaims it purely to be a product of “values.”
So, a man who has lived in Lagos all his life, but believes in freedom of private practice of religion and common law, is now more English than King John: born in England, but who required Magna Carta to constrain his tyrannical rule. This is absurd. We can recognise the Nigerian chap may well make a better neighbour, but that he is not because of this more “British” than someone whose ancestors were born here. Nor is this observation a moral judgement of our Nigerian friend.
How, then, can this be reconciled with Labour’s alliance with, and apologetics for, undiluted and illiberal Islam?
Labour can tolerate sectarianism, feeling good about themselves for respecting a “community”, while also believing in the ineluctable power of “British values” to dissolve any tribal priors from their deprived homelands. This is a tolerable state of affairs, because they’re in the process of adding all the ingredients before hitting blend.
Read or listen to my new essay here.
The point in this line of reasoning is not just that I find untruths intolerable, and feel compelled to speak out against them till I turn blue.
The point is that the English not only exist, but deserve to organise in political fashion to have their interests represented, addressed, and policies enacted in their homeland in their favour.
Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson had a similar conversation this week: with Douglas debunking the liberal notion that nations are founded on “ideas”, decoupled from the particular peoples who conceived of them.
Observations such as that led warmongering liar Alastair Campbell to crybully to the Metropolitan Police, and urge they investigate Murray for mentioning his book The Strange Death of Europe (2017) in an interview on Prager U about the recent unrest in England.
I chose to delineate beneath Campbell’s post between Douglas Murray’s Cassandra-like warning against sectarian and ethnic strife, imported into Europe, and Campbell’s dodgy dossier which caused thousands to die in the Iraq War.
It looks like everyone except Alastair Campbell thought I was right about that one — including Douglas himself.
On Tomlinson Talks this week, I conducted an anatomical study of the economic and social conditions preceding the unrest which occurred in various Labour constituencies after the Southport stabbings.
In it, I touched upon Murray’s piece in the Spectator, which noted that, since 2011, economic deprivation in every town which saw protests, and clashes between English natives and Muslim mobs, has worsened.
Murray notes that almost all economic opportunities created since 2011 have gone to foreign labour:
At the time of the 2011 riots, foreign-born workers accounted for 14 per cent of the UK workforce. Today it’s 21 per cent. Employment has grown by 3.6 million since 2011, but fully 74 per cent of this is down to immigrant workers.
And so, when the voting populace expresses their opposition to mass immigration at every election since 2010, and has their wishes ignored, and demonised as “Far Right” and “racist”, he asks, what other means of recourse do they have? What state fo affairs did our political class expect, if not violence?
Neither Murray nor I want nor condone wanton criminal damage. Do not loot a Lush or Greggs. Do not attack innocent people. Don’t start fights with police officers. Don’t set light to a hotel.
Don’t do anything which gives the ruling regime the excuse to crack down on you, and delegitimise your valid concerns about immigration and the privileging of Islam (in finance and law) about the native people and their culture. But we know they want to.
But it is fair to say that Douglas Murray foresaw how all of these factors would come to a very bloody head if the politicians didn’t listen.
I also discussed the two-tier policing, and sclerotic stubbornness of the political class — personified by neurotic narcissists like Alastair Campbell — with Dan Wooton, and my Deprogrammed cohost Harrison Pitt, on Dan Wootton Outspoken this week:
Two-Tier Kier and Labour’s Race Communism
To understand why Labour insist on this on-rails way of doing politics, to the detriment of the host population (and their own polling numbers), I spoke to Andrew Gold on the Heretics podcast.
We debated the merits of immigration; why civilisation should be set up to facilitate flourishing families over generating GDP; and whether a revival of Christianity can reconstitute the remnants of our ailing culture.
It’s proven a divisive interview for Andrew’s liberal-leaning audience; but he found it valuable, as an inquisitive and honest man. Hopefully you get something useful out of it.
Speaking of Labour’s ailing polling figures: on Tomlinson Talks, I covered how the English working class is ostensibly Labour seats are responding to polls about the recent civil unrest with sizeable pluralities justifying violence to prevent “refugees” being settled in their area; and how many blame mass immigration for the protests.
Labour — and the Conservatives before them, under the stewardship of Tony Blair — have brought the country to the brink in this fashion by censoring sensible voices on the matter, and refusing to enact policies which reduce immigration to protect the native population.
We discussed this on Deprogrammed this week on The New Culture Forum with author and philosopher Nina Power.
Nina endured her own unjust cancellation recently: with her efforts to enact consequences on a bad-faith actor accusing her of racism and antisemitism ending in a judge — with no understanding of how online political discourse works — ruling against her, and rendering her bankrupt, despite the litigant admitting to lying about her fellow counter-claimant.
You can listen to our discussion about Keir Starmer’s crackdown on citizen journalism, online speech, and how a captured judiciary provides no redress for those with principled concerns about mass immigration and a lack of integration.
The Church and the Cathedral
Curtis Yarvin’s analogy for the architecture of state power is akin to a Cathedral rang true this week, as the Archbishop of Canterbury yet again betrayed the English people by mischaracterizing all those concerned about limitless quantities of hostile dependents as “Far Right”.
Now, the Anglican Church is admitting what we Catholics have known since Henry VII: that they are not a fulfilment of Matthew 16:18, but rather a ‘community’, with equal interests to that of imported Imams and Muslim and migrant enclaves, to be arbitrated by Labour as the managers of our multicultural melting pot.
I am reminded of what David Starkey once told me: that the Anglican Church is ‘English Shintoism — the English worshipping themselves’.
The problem — as I once discussed with Professor Nigel Biggar, and yesterday, on Talk TV — is that once English identity is erased, replaced with liberal platitudes, and only invoked to beat Britain’s occupants with the cudgel of ahistorical guilt for slavery (in order to extract resources from them), then the Church of England, too, becomes another beam in the progressive Cathedral.
Christians and any Church must return to scripture, lest they find their congregations empty, and their countries falling into disarray.