FREE BRITAIN NOW!

 

 

THE VOICE OF TRUTH, DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM

 

 

 

Socialism exposed

 

Exposing

the

Labour

Party

 

The Fabian

Society: the

masters of

subversion

unmasked

 

Revealed: the Socialist International

 

The truth about the European Union

 

The

Fourth

British

Empire

 

The

Migration

Observatory

 

The Oxford

Martin

School

 

Unmasking

the EDL

 

 

 

Is there a “need” for immigrants?

 

6 January 2013

 

 

This question is investigated here on data related to Britain as a representative example, but the results are largely applicable to other European or Western countries.

 

Specifically, it has been claimed that Britain “needs skilled workers”; that “immigration is good for the economy”; that immigration “creates jobs”; that Britain “needs immigration to sustain the current population level,” etc. The following facts expose the Big Immigration Lie:

 

1. It goes without saying that not all immigrants are skilled, many are unskilled. Even skilled immigrants may have unskilled wives, children or parents. As a result, along with the “skilled workers” there are a high number of unskilled workers.

 

2. Many immigrants – housewives, children, students, retired persons – are economically inactive, i.e., non-workers. This is particularly the case with immigrants who come to Britain (and Europe) in the context of “family reunification” and, failing to meet labour market requirements, struggle to find work (Sutherland, 20 Jun. 2012, pp. 17-18). 

    

In the 1950s and 60s many immigrants came to Britain to take up employment. By 1997, only 12% of immigrants from the former New Commonwealth entered Britain for work (Caldwell, p. 41).

 

Out of a total of 500,000 immigrants arriving in the UK in 2013, only 200,000 came here in search of work (Belfast Telegraph, 28 Nov. 2013).

 

Official reports show that immigrants are more likely to be out of work than British people (Hennessy, 2011).

 

It follows that the proportion of skilled workers, indeed of workers in general, to the total immigrant population is much lower than it is claimed.

 

3. Even if all immigrants were skilled (which they are not), it does not mean that they all have the skills British economy needs. Nor is there a system to ensure that those who come to Britain have the required skills.

 

4. If Britain is short on skilled workers, this is obviously a failure of the education system and the question must be raised as to whether this failure is accidental or deliberate.

 

Low-skilled workers amount to between 20 and 30 per cent of the workforce in Germany and France, but 60 per cent in the UK.

 

Official figures show that 20 per cent of London pupils in 2013 left primary school without reaching even basic levels in reading, writing and maths (Davis, 2013). 

 

As the education system in Britain has been dominated by the Left (the Labour Party and the Fabian Society) since the early 1900s, it is not unreasonable to conclude that this catastrophic situation is the doing of the Left.

 

At any rate, the solution is to reform the education system and train local workers, not to import foreign ones. Governments must identify the areas where workers are needed and then ensure that training is provided for sufficient numbers of local workers to meet those needs.

 

This is particularly imperative in view of the fact that, as admitted by the head of the United Nations Forum on Migration, Peter Sutherland, shortage of workers in the European Union is to be found at the lowest rather than at the top skill level (Sutherland, 20 Jun. 2012, p. 13).

 

5. Saying that immigration is good for the economy implies that everything is acceptable as long as it brings financial profit. Thus, from the outset, this claim exposes the moral bankruptcy of the pro-immigration camp.

 

In addition, while it may be acceptable to believe that immigration is “good” for the economy when the economy is strong, it seems irrational to cling on to the same belief when the economy evidently is on a downward path or stagnant despite a massive influx of immigrants.

 

According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), the economy of America, a country plagued by mass immigration, both legal and illegal, is set to be overtaken by that of China, a country with very little immigration. 

 

Indeed, economic systems are not God-given; they are man-made. And if man can create economies that depend on immigrants, he can equally well devise an economy that does not. As no attempt is being made to do so, this suggests an ulterior motive on the part of the authorities responsible. What these motives are will become apparent from the evidence considered below. Meanwhile, suffice it to note that the relentless emphasis on economic considerations irrespective of the realities on the ground is a long-established tactic to deflect attention from other issues.

 

6. Even assuming that immigration is “good” for the economy in some ways, there is no doubt that it is bad in other ways. For example, illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Most immigrants send money back home, exporting capital that should be reinvested in British economy, not taken out of the country, etc.

 

7. If immigration creates new jobs, then the more immigration there is the more new jobs are created. But the more new jobs are created, the greater becomes the need for immigration. It follows that instead of resolving anything, immigration creates an inescapable vicious circle, a situation which critics have (not unreasonably) described as an “addiction to immigrants.”

 

8. As admitted by a number of political leaders, including pro-immigration ones like Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, immigration brings not only benefits but also costs (Miliband, 2012). Particularly important in the current economic situation is the loss of employment caused to the indigenous population by mass immigration, especially from outside the EU. As conceded by the Migration Advisory Committee, one hundred additional non-EU immigrants result in a “reduction in employment of 23 native workers” (MAC, 2012).

 

9. Immigration is one of the causes behind the rise in crime levels. For example, religion-motivated terrorism, honour killings, forced marriage, child marriage, polygamy, genital mutilation, are culture-specific crimes that are directly linkable to the immigrant population.

 

10. Importing people from abroad is an irrational and perverse approach to demographic problems. To maintain Britain’s current population level, all that is needed is for British couples to have more children and government policies in this regard to be introduced.

 

11. Nobody knows how many illegal immigrants there are in Britain. Estimates range between 250,000 (Migration Watch UK) and 500,000 (Home Office), with some sources giving an upper limit of 1 million (UK Border Force, Sky2, 10 Jun. 2012). As it is not known who they are or what they are doing in Britain, nothing definite can be said on their effect on British economy and culture. However, we do know that a significant number of the illegal immigrants who have been tracked down by the authorities are small-time criminals, terrorists or fraudsters. There is no reason to believe that those who are still at large are any better. They certainly do not pay taxes and if any of them are in employment they take away jobs from people who are here legally, including indigenous Britons. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the overall impact of illegal immigration on British society is negative.

 

12. The truth is that immigration serves the interests of corrupt employers who are looking for cheap labour and would rather pay low wages to immigrants than pay decent wages to British workers. Inevitably, this results in lower living standards for the indigenous population (Lilley, 2006). Indeed, as a number of studies have shown, mass immigration has pushed wages down (The Economist, 30 Jun. 2012) while the cost of living has gone up.

 

House of Commons Library figures (adjusted for inflation) show that in 2013 wages were down 5.5 per cent since the mass immigration peak of 2010 (“UK wages decline among worst in Europe,” BBC News, 11 Aug. 2013). Even in traditional immigration countries like America, salaries have decreased for the first time on record, despite or because of unprecedented mass immigration (Sanburn, 2011).

 

As rising living costs and declining wages cannot be good for the majority of the population, it becomes obvious that “good for the economy” really means good for vested interests.

 

Predictably, a study by the London Chamber of Commerce has revealed that half of firms in London (which has one of the highest percentages of immigrants) employ immigrant workers and believe that immigration is “positive for the capital’s economy” i.e., for themselves (Watts, 2013).

 

13. In the long term, the constant influx of immigrants results in the gradual replacement of the local population with foreigners. Again, as it cannot be in the interests of the local population to be replaced, it becomes clear that mass immigration serves the agenda of vested interests.

 

14. Significantly, immigration serves the interests of left-wing financial groups. A typical example is the Rothschild banking family who have been supporters of left-wing policies for much of their history, a number of them having served as Liberal MPs. Lord Nathan Rothschild, a Liberal-turned-Liberal-Unionist, was president and financial supporter of the Socialist London School of Economics (LSE), while his grandson Victor Rothschild was a Labour peer. The Rothschilds also have a proven record of support for immigration. Lord Rothschild, for example, believed that Britain should be a haven for immigrants and opposed the Alien Act 1905 which introduced immigration controls (Ferguson, pp. 277-8).

 

The Rothschilds’ support for immigration has been shared by other leading figures from the financial world, in particular, those with close connections to the City of London. For example, the governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, is on record as suggesting that cheap foreign labour helps keep wages down and fill “skills shortages” (Eaglesham & Daneshkhu, 2004).

 

Lord Digby Jones, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) which was created by Shell, BP, Ford and associated interests, has declared that a cap on immigration would reduce the “flexibility” of the British labour market (Financial Times, 4 May 2005).

 

Similarly, Baroness Jo Valentine, head of the City lobby group London First, has repeatedly spoken out against Conservative plans to curb immigration and prioritise British employees, forcing David Cameron’s coalition government to rethink its policies by claiming that they would sacrifice the “huge advantages” of “global talent” attracted by Britain (Boxell & Parker, 2010; Valentine, 2012).

 

Tellingly, the London First management team includes the likes of Rob McIvor, formerly of Rockefeller-controlled Citigroup and Rothschild-associated Barclays, and Phillip Dilley, chairman of the Arup Group and councillor of Imperial College, a creation of the Fabian Society and its financial backers. Valentine herself is a former manager of Baring Brothers (London’s oldest merchant bank and one-time leader of the City’s financial establishment) and founder of the pro-immigrant Central London Partnership (CLP) which set up the Central London Taskforce for the 2012 Olympic Games, a strongly pro-immigrant project.

 

Another key advocate of immigration is UN Migration Forum boss Peter Sutherland, who also serves as chairman of Goldman Sachs International, the European arm of the US banking giant which is a dominant element in the City (Sutherland, 15 Jun. 2012; Sutherland, 20 Jun. 2012; Wheeler, 2012).

 

Perhaps most revealing of all is the stand of the established money power organs, the Financial Times (FT) and The Economist, themselves. The FT, which is owned by the Lazard-associated Pearson, has long pronounced itself in favour of immigration (Shlaes, 2001), while The Economist, co-owned by the Rothschilds, has claimed that restricting the number of talented immigrants damages the City’s prospects (The Economist, 7 Jan. 2012) and has published an open letter of invitation to immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania (21 Dec. 2013).

 

 

The Economist’s invitation to immigrants

 

Even media outlets claiming to oppose immigration, e.g., the Daily Mail, directly or indirectly encourage the same trend. For example, raising the alarm over “millions of Bulgarians and Romanians” is not only factually incorrect – these countries have small and declining populations (the whole population of Bulgaria is smaller than that of London) – but is misleading the public by deflecting attention from the massive influx of immigrants from outside the European Community (Africa, South Asia, China, Latin America).

 

15. Above all, immigration serves the interests of left-wing political elites operating in close collaboration with the above financial interests and using the immigrant community to advance their own agendas, for example, to make British society more multicultural (Green, 2010) or to win votes (West, 2009).

 

Nor is it just Labour politicians who are pro-immigration. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister, has attacked Conservative plans to cap immigration from the EU on the grounds that it would be a “disaster” for the economy and, in particular, for the City of London (i.e., the international financial interests dominating the City) (Swinford, 2013).

 

Again, this shows that instead of representing the electorate, our political leaders really represent vested interests.

 

Clearly, there is an unbridgeable and ever-widening gap between ordinary Britons, over 70 per cent of whom believe that there are too many immigrants in the country (Ipsos MORI, 4 Aug. 2011) and the political leadership who thinks there are too few.

 

16. Immigration has also enjoyed strong support from universities and other educational and academic institutions dominated by left-wing ideologies and having close links to the same financial and political interests. Such institutions have a large proportion of immigrant students on whom they depend for income (e.g., the London School of Economics), are run by immigrants (e.g., the Oxford Martin School) and generally pursue subversive, left-wing agendas involving systematic promotion of immigrants and immigration.

 

It should be noted in this connection that, although foreign students are said by pro-immigration interests to return to their countries of origin once they have graduated from British universities like the LSE, we have it on the authority of LSE chairman Peter Sutherland himself that many of them actually stay on (Sutherland, 20 Jun. 2012, p. 16).

 

The activities of the above interests have led to the creation of an immigrant-centred society in which the indigenous population is increasingly marginalised, excluded and gradually replaced with immigrants in many parts of the country. Official figures show that Britain’s immigrant population has already reached 20 per cent of the total and is estimated to become a majority in the next few decades (Coleman, 2010; Silverman, 2013).

 

Two things become obvious from the above facts:

 

1. A combination of greed for profit and power and aberrant left-wing ideologies have turned large sections of the Establishment (business, banking, finance, politics, education, academia, etc.) into an increasingly malignant and hostile entity acting against the interests of the British public.

 

2. As normal democratic procedures are no longer working, ordinary Britons can only re-assert themselves through a popular anti-Establishment mass movement aimed at putting democracy back into the system and restoring the rule of truth, order and justice.

 

See also:

 

The Oxford Martin School

 

The Migration Observatory

 

 

Belfast Telegraph, “‘Massive gap’ in immigration target,” 29 Nov. 2013.

 

Boxell, James & Parker, George, “Fears force immigration cap rethink,” Financial Times, 25 Jun. 2010

 

Caldwell, Christopher, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, London, 2009.

 

Coleman, David, “When Britain becomes “majority minority””, Prospect, 17 Nov. 2010.

 

Davis, Anna, “20% of London pupils leave primary school unable to read or count,” Evening Standard, 12 Dec. 2013.

Eaglesham, Jean & Daneshkhu, Scheherazade, “Number of immigrants soars past forecasts,” Financial Times, 11 Nov. 2004.

Economist, “Global finance: Save the City,” 7 Jan. 2012.

Economist, “Hello, world,” 30 Jun. 2012.

Economist, “You’re welcome: An open letter to the citizens of Bulgaria and Romania,” 21 Dec. 2013.

Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, Vol. 2, New York, NY, 2000.

Financial Times, “Figuring out role of migrant workers,” 4 May 2005.

Green, Andrew, “Paying the price for a decade of deception,” Daily Mail Online, 12 Feb. 2010.

Hennessy, Patrick, “Labour’s cover-up on immigration to be laid bare,” Sunday Telegraph, 25 Sept. 2011.

 

Lilley, Peter, “More Workers, Lower Living Standards,” Sunday Telegraph, 27 Aug. 2006.

Migration Advisory Committee, “Analysis of the Impacts of Migration,” Jan. 2012.

Miliband, Ed, “Immigration brings costs as well as benefits,” Evening Standard, 22 Jun. 2012.

Reid, Sue, “Lost in administration: Scandal over illegal immigrants hidden among 37,000 files of foreigners appealing to stay in Britain,” Daily Mail, 15 Oct 2011.

Sanburn, Josh, “5 Most Surprising Findings From the 2010 Census,” Time, 20. Dec. 2011.

Shlaes, Amity, “The right must learn the comfort of the strangers: Conservatives are falling into the same trap as Republicans by railing against immigration, not supporting growth,” Financial Times, 10 Apr. 2001.

Silverman, Rosa, “White Britons ‘will be minority’ by 2066, says professor,” Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2013.

 

Sutherland, Peter, “A Constructive Attitude to Migration is a Moral Issue,” Address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 Jun. 2012.

 

Sutherland, Peter in Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords, “Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, Evidence Session No. 1, Wednesday 20 June 2012, 11.25 am, Witness: Mr Peter Sutherland, QQ 1-34”, uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.

 

Swinford, Steven, “Theresa May’s EU migrant cap is ‘one-eyed’ and illegal, suggests Nick Clegg,” Daily Telegraph, 16 Dec. 2013.

Valentine, Jo, “Skilled migrant in senior finance post,” Financial Times, 27 Nov. 2012.

Watts, Joseph, “Clegg says May’s ‘illegal’ plan to cap EU migrants would hit City,” Evening Standard, 16 Dec. 2013.

West, Ed, “How the Government pays Muslims to vote Labour,” Daily Telegraph, 17 March 2009.

Wheeler, Brian, “EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief,” BBC News, 21 Jun. 2012.

 

 

Articles

 

 

’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian Socialist

smoke-and-mirrors campaign

 

Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order

 

Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or “murderous terrorist”?

 

Diversity is Not a Catholic Value

 

If it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot

 

Towards a British revolution

 

Do white people have a future in South Africa?

 

Is there a “need” for immigrants?

 

The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian Society

 

The truth about the Labour Party

 

The truth about the Fabian Society

 

The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy against humanity

 

Socialism’s prescient critics

 

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism

 

Britain divided by Islam, survey finds

 

The Real Churchill

 

The last days of a white world

 

A Webb of Lies

 

Socialism and Incentives

 

 

 

 

Recommended reading

 

 

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.

 

Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1981.

 

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

 

Butler, Eric D., The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.

 

Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.

 

Horowitz, David & Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals seized control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.

 

Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ, 2006.

 

Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within, New York, NY, 2006.

 

Courtois, Stéphane et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and London, 1999.

 

Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, Washington, DC,

2011

 

Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana, London, 2008.

 

Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked, Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.

 

Docherty, Gerry & MacGregor, James, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh, 2013.

 

 

 

           

 

Home

 

About

 

FAQs

 

Articles

 

Unite

Against

Socialism

 

Get Britain Out

 

Big Brother

Watch

 

Young Britons’

Foundation

 

Civitas

 

Bow Group

 

Traditional

Britain

Group

 

Salisbury

Review

 

This

England

 

Migration

Watch

 

Immigration Control

Platform

 

Stop

Islamisation

Of Europe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2013