One of the standard lines all over the West is to claim that immigration is a humanitarian policy designed to relieve poverty in poor countries – as well as ‘enriching’ the host countries. It’s all win win win for us plus a glow of virtuous pride in our caring side.
As this talk amply demonstrates, neither claim is true.
The line taken in Britain is that immigration has an added beneficial dimension in spreading prosperity throughout Europe – plus filling those famous jobs which ‘Britons won’t do’.
The whole concept of immigration as a benefit has been carefully worked up as a propaganda package – seldom really dissected by the media which merely picks at it round the edges rather than treating it as the basis of a fraudulent political system backed by all the three big parties.
Things are now beginning to fray and it’s unlikely that the political system in Britain can find ways to prevent a continued unraveling.
3
Immigration can’t halt poverty? True, all it does is reproduce Third World squalor in the West.
The establishment politicians and media always condemn anyone who dares to speak out against further immigration as being ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, etc. This short video clearly demonstrates how immigration cannot help the Third World.
Indeed it does far more harm than good. Not to mention that the birth rate is so much higher among those who live in the Third World, and those who immigrate here, that we will be outnumbered within just a few generations.
As we in the BDP have said many times, a Third World immigrant does not transform the moment they cross the border into Britain. They bring with them their own customs and cultures. The mere fact that people in the Third World are unable to organise themselves into successful societies suggests that culturally they are missing vital facets that would enable them to do so.
When they inevitably become the overall majority here, and in the rest of the more developed world, they will surely recreate those same Third World conditions which they had created in their countries of origin. This can already be witnessed in Britain in areas that have high levels of Third World immigration.
A good few years ago, I read of an African woman living in Slough, I think it was, who built herself a mud hut in her garden to which she would repair when feeling homesick. She stated that she only felt really at home in the hut. The neighbours were not impressed.
This demonstrated to me that you can’t change the mindset of a person just by changing their environment.
This is where we in the BDP and UKIP would differ. To your average UKIPPER, a Third World Britain would still be Britain. To us, the national character of Britain would have changed so fundamentally that effectively it would no longer be Britain.