Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Immigration: 'Not something prescribed to society'

The above quote was made by bganon. I will set out to show that immigration is indeed prescribed to society, at least in the West. Im using Britain as an example. Im not going to concentrate on the merits of the arguments for or against immigration. Thats a big topic in itself, so my aim is just to show that immigration is prescribed to the people of Britain. If anyone is interested in the merits of the arguments for immigration (economic prosperity and cultural diversity are the favourites) which Robin, Tony, and David keep repeating (like broken records) in the 3 speeches I supply then 2 excellent sites I found recently attempt to address those points and more:
The absurdities of multiculturalism
The Economics of Immigration

Multiculturalism is defined as the mixing of people of different races, nations, religions and cultures. It is absolutely impossible to create a multicultural society, out of homogenous ones, without immigration. Therefore one cannot talk about the benefits of multiculturalism while criticising immigration. The two go together. It is theoretically possible that the reverse could be true, that you could have immigration which does not lead to multi-culturalism (ie diaspora returning) but for the most part this type of immigration is negligible.
Multiculturalism is sold as an ideal, (and immigration as a means to executing that ideal). Most Brits would laugh at the claim that it is not prescribed to society since they know that criticism of immigration is so taboo, that a party who let most of them in while in government (the ‘conservatives’), can be described as racist just for suggesting that there should be a limit on immigration. All government and media institutions, and their various ‘think tanks’ and ‘commissions’ endorse both immigration, and multiculturalism. This is obvious to anyone living in the country but for those people who haven’t experienced the propaganda machine in action Ive supplied two speeches as an example of the type of stuff we’re dealing with. Even wikipedia states:
Multiculturalism was adopted as official policy, in several nations from the 1970's onward, for reasons that varied from country to country.
Multiculturalism began as an official policy in English-speaking countries, starting in Canada in 1971. It was quickly adopted by most member-states in the EU, as official policy, and as a social consensus among the elite.


Heres what Robin Cook (foreign minister at the time) had to say on the matter when he wasn’t busy supervising and promoting the bombing of Serbia back into the stoneage:

The British are not a race, but a gathering of countless different races and communities, the vast majority of which were not indigenous to these islands.
It is not their purity that makes the British unique, but the sheer pluralism of their ancestry.
He starts off by laying the foundation for his subsequent gross deception by undermining the British people In two ways. First he implies they aren’t really indigenous to Britain, secondly he questions their stock. The fact that are nonetheless 100% European with no Pakistani or Afghan contributors to the gene pool he conveniently leaves out.

Today’s London is a perfect hub of the globe. It is home to over 30 ethnic communities of at least 10,000 residents each. In this city tonight, over 300 languages will be spoken by families over their evening meal at home.
What a beautiful image, families having their evening meal, if that doesn’t convince you nothing will.

This pluralism is not a burden we must reluctantly accept. It is an immense asset that contributes to the cultural and economic vitality of our nation.
Sounds like hes selling multiculturalism to me. What would we do without all those cultural benefits, how would the economy function.

Legitimate immigration is the necessary and unavoidable result of economic success, which generates a demand for labour faster than can be met by the birth-rate of a modern developed country.
Our cultural diversity is one of the reasons why Britain continues to be the preferred location for multinational companies setting up in Europe.
And it isn't just our economy that has been enriched by the arrival of new communities. Our lifestyles and cultural horizons have also been broadened in the process.
Hes said this already, but cant find any other reasons so he mentions economic and cultural benefits again. This time he inserts a new descriptive term that liberals love: ‘enrichment’.

Some of the most successful countries in the modern world, such as the United States and Canada, are immigrant societies. Their experience shows how cultural diversity, allied to a shared concept of equal citizenship, can be a source of enormous strength.
Diversity a source of enormous strength eh. How can we achieve it…immigrant societies.

The diversity of modern Britain expressed through devolution and multiculturalism is more consistent with the historical experience of our islands.
Actually more consistent with the British historical experience would be a military invasion by a European country. Maybe the French could be persuaded to invade, I mean countless dead and foreign subjugation is a small price to pay, as long we’re being consistent and true to our past historical experiences. Liberal logic is a strange subject.

We should be proud that those British values have made Britain a successful multi-ethnic society. We should welcome that pluralism as a unique asset for Britain in a modern world where our prosperity, our security and our influence depend on the health of our relations with other peoples around the globe.
Again hes repeating himself. But notice how he uses diversity, immigrant societies, pluralism, multi-ethnic, multi-culturalism interchangeably. Hes promoting the whole lot, not just one. Yet again he mentions the economic benefits, but in an effort to produce another positive (hes desperate here) he inserts a real porker of a lie: pluralism improves relations with other peoples around the globe which in turn leads to greater security).

And we should recognise that its diversity is part of the reason why Britain is a great place to live.
Still sounds like hes selling it to us.

Now we have Tony Bliar preaching to us:

So now is the time to make the argument for controlled migration.
He mentions controlled immigration (yeah right), but even so the bottom line is that hes trying to persuade us that we need immigration.


Where there are abuses we will deal with them, so that public support for the controlled migration that benefits Britain is maintained.
A recognition of the benefits that controlled migration brings not just to the economy but to delivering the public and private services on which we rely.
Celebrating the major achievements of migrants in this country and the success of our uniquely British model of diversity.So fact one; the movement of people and labour into and out of the UK is, and always has been, absolutely essential to our economy.And the economic contribution of visitors and migrants is nothing new. At crucial points over the past century and beyond we have relied on migrants to supply essential capital to our economy and plug the labour gaps when no others could be found.
The usual economic arguments.

And they were followed in the 1950s and 1960s by workers from the West Indies and South Asia who found jobs in electrical engineering, food and drink plants, car manufacturing, paper and rubber mills and plastic works, fuelling the post-war economic boom that backed up MacMillan's claim that "we'd never had it so good".
Implying a causal link between immigration and prosperity.

Those who do come here make a huge contribution
Repeating himself.

Our public services would be close to collapse without their contribution.
Introduces a touch of drama to the proceedings to prevent listeners from falling asleep to the mantra of economic prosperity, cultural diviersity, economic prosperity, cultural diversity..............

Population mobility and migration has been crucial to our economic success
How many times, do you not have any other points to make Tony?

The East African Asians who fled Uganda in the 1970s have contributed immeasurably to British society
Immeasurable eh.

Britain as a whole is immeasurably richer - and not just economically - for the contribution that migrants have made to our society.
Same monotonous argument as Robin Cooks: cultural and economic benefits to immigration.

Our literature, our music, our national sporting teams - all bear the indelible impact of centuries of migration.
Same tactic as Cook as well, try and paint the Britain as an immigrant country.

So over the coming months, we will do two things at once: make the argument for controlled migration as good and beneficial for Britain
There you have it: immigration being prescribed.

We all have responsibilities: ordinary decent British people - to keep faith in our traditions of tolerance and our historic record of becoming stronger and richer as a result of migration and diversity.
Translation: It’s your responsibility to keep the faith as regards our migration and diversity experiment even though you don’t like it and it isnt working.
Notice how he tries to offload responsibility for this modern phenomenon by claiming its ‘traditional’ and ‘historic’. Afterall if its been happening since time immemorial then he doesn’t have to come up with any convincing reasons of his own for it. Interesting how he pleads with people to keep faith in something which is so incredibly good. You’d have thought that since its so great he wouldn’t need to be begging people to persevere with it.

In addition to the speeches by a former foreign minister, and the current prime minister, I'll add a third by a former home office minister, David Blunkett. The man is famous for having to resign due to abusing his position to speed up the residence application of the nanny of the married woman who was giving him sexual favours. The essay is brain-numbingly boring including the same repetitive phrases as the other two, but to show people the limited but insistent nature of their arguments Ive provided some of the highlights:

Migration is now of crucial importance to developing countries
This is probably sending you to sleep.......sorry.

But migration also brings significant cultural, as well as economic, benefits.
Where have we heard this before....

It increases the diversity of our societies, and builds up our cultural capital.
In an effort to be original he introduces a new twist, referring to the cultural benefits in economic terms.

In the UK, we have always been an open, trading nation, enriched by our global links. Contemporary patterns of migration extend this tradition.
Same tactics as the rest: make out that immigration is a historic tradition. If its not new or innovative, less need to provide evidence to back up his assertions. Gets a gold star for fitting in the word 'enriched'.

Democratic governments need to ensure that their electorates have confidence and trust in the nationality, immigration and asylum systems they are operating, or people will turn to extremists for answers.
F*cking hypocrite. How many people can have confidence and trust in a man that abuses his position for sexual gratification.

the fact that a substantial proportion of the citizens of the West are themselves Muslims - something which is very important to social cohesion in countries such as the UK.
Only Robin Cooks lie about diversity being good for security is on a par with this fib. So the recipe for good social cohesion in any country is to introduce a substantial proportion of Muslims.

In addition to these 3 speeches Ive just come accross the Orwellian sounding government white paper 'Strength in Diversity'. The same arguments that Robin, Tony, and David used are trotted out. If they're not prescribing immigration, multiculturalism and diversity to us with comments such as the following then Im Harry Potter:

The United Kingdom has a long tradition of successful migration and
integration that has brought, and continues to bring real economic and social benefits, which are shared by all.


Respecting and valuing diversity is an essential part of building a successful,
integrated society.


3 Comments:

Blogger MrSmith said...

In amongst all that tripe of his there are some very important things:

Statement - "We should welcome that pluralism as a unique asset for Britain in a modern world where our prosperity, our security and our influence depend on the health of our relations with other peoples around the globe."

Translation - "If we upset people around the world, our security is threatened. We must pay Danegeld."


Statement - "Legitimate immigration is the necessary and unavoidable result of economic success, which generates a demand for labour faster than can be met by the birth-rate of a modern developed country."

Translation - "It is not economically viable for women to stop having babies as the feminists want. But we're too scared of the feminists to say so."


Statement - "The British are not a race, but a gathering of countless different races and communities, the vast majority of which were not indigenous to these islands.
It is not their purity that makes the British unique, but the sheer pluralism of their ancestry.
"

Translation - "I am an outright liar who wants to re-write the history of Britain. Nevermind that the British people had not been invaded since 1066 until the immigration wave started in the 50s, if I tell you it's always been this way often enough, you'll accept it like good little sheep."

Bastards.

11:12 AM  
Blogger Hellenic Nationalist said...

Isn't it typical that , generally what the "powers that be" cabal wats is actually multiracialism, since other European immigrants such as christian Eastern Europeans tend to , in general, assimilate into English society within a generation, the same could be said of France and Grmany and any other inudstrialised Western or Northern European country. The only ones who cannot assimilate fully are Jews and to a far greater extent Muslims (especially the one with Negro admixture) and the scummy ones from Pakistan, Bengladesh etc etc, rather than ,generally, assimilating. They live in hostile enclavs and litter the landscape and by sprouting hostile ducky ghettos.

10:02 PM  
Blogger MrSmith said...

Oddly, my own experiences have been that the Jews seem to want to just get on with things. They don't particularly want to assimilate, but that only extends to their actual religion, whereas the moslems have shops, schools, etc popping up left right and centre, displacing native things.

Disconcerting, to say the least.

6:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home