Posted on 08/15/2002 8:59:01 AM PDT by Korth
Will Americans ever escape the gag of political correctness? Probably not, but the English are making a last ditch effort. On Aug. 7, the London Times published an article by one of its editors titled, "Britain is Losing Britain"
Third World immigration, hitherto an unmentionable subject, is quadrupling the rate of Britain's population growth and creating a new city of immigrants the size of Cambridge every six months.
Immigration, the Times says, is transforming Britain into "a foreign land." British society is being utterly transformed "against the wishes of the majority of the population, damaging quality of life and social cohesion, exacerbating the housing crisis and congestion," and burdening the health service to the breaking point.
Finding the situation "so extreme and so damaging," the Times editor writes that "silence is no longer an option." Britain is literally disappearing. In many British cities, "you can wander around for hours without seeing a white face, one monoculture having replaced another." Yet, "immigration celebrationists" continue "to brainwash the British public into thinking that it is all for their own good. But almost every reason given to support this immigration is bogus."
"In the past five years," the Times says, "while the white population grew by 1 percent, the Bangladeshi community grew by 30 percent, the black African population by 37 percent and the Pakistani community by 13 percent. ... Whole villages in Bangladesh have been transplanted to northern English towns."
The British political order has broken down. Polls show that without question, "the large majority of British people -- including around half of ethnic minorities -- think there is too much immigration." But public opinion is powerless: "No mainstream political party dare reflect public opinion." British politicians cower before the immigration lobby and fear being called racist, Nazi or xenophobic.
Name-calling aside, the Times says that massive immigration without assimilation leads to social fragmentation. More non-Britons wish to live in Britain than are consistent with the existence of Britain. "The people of Britain have a right to decide who can move here."
The Times assertion that the people of Britain -- and not the immigration lobby -- have the right to decide immigration policy is heresy to multiculturalists. But the very next day (before anyone could burn the heretic), the Daily Mail, Britain's largest circulation newspaper, reprinted the Times article. Thus, debate has begun before hysterical "immigration celebrationists" can shout it down.
Sir Andrew Green, a career British diplomat, together with Oxford University demographer David Coleman, has formed a new organization, Migration Watch UK. These developments are shifting the burden of argument. Now immigration enthusiasts are on the hot seat. They must explain why they aren't racists for wishing to destroy Britain with massive Third World immigration.
Americans are losing their country, too, but Americans are not allowed to say so. Third World immigration to the United States is higher than to Britain. One in five of the U.S. population was born abroad or born of parents who were born abroad. This is a massive change from 1970, when new immigrants counted for only one in 20 U.S. births.
While the British worry about losing cities to Third World immigrants, the United States is losing entire states. Assimilation has broken down. In its place, Americans now endure Third World enclaves or colonies.
As the United States becomes a polyglot, how can it have any foreign policy? How much longer will the United States be able to conduct a pro-Israeli foreign policy and plan invasions of Middle Eastern countries?
The outlines of U.S. domestic policy in the New Immigrationist State (NIS) are already apparent. The tax burdens on native-born whites will rise to meet the needs of the poor immigrants. The burden of the federal personal income tax rests on a narrow base of 35 million taxpayers who are, in effect, slaves of the state. The colonization of these taxpayers will intensify, as millions of needy new immigrants enter the United States each year.
The United States, like Britain, faces extinction as a nation-state. Both countries are becoming colonies for a plethora of Third World cultures.
As one Briton put it, "We resisted Hitler in order to become a colony for Africa, Asia and the Middle East." The United States has done the British one better. We have become the world's colony.
Only some of the free flow of people is for that. Much of it is because of miserable conditions in their homelands and things only get worse when so many make an exodus, there is no stability or growth then and conditions get even worse, more and more leave. Those same people that would demand changes that would improve the country leave and things just decline more. It's a vicious cycle.
The major Euro parties agree that certain politically-correct topics — especially immigration and multiculturalism and to a lesser extent crime — are not to become topics of political debate.
Consequently people who believe these are questions of national importance are driven to the wingnut British National Party or Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National.
This is precisely correct. I lurk at democraticunderground.com a lot, and these folks want to scrape the US off the North American continent and replace it with a socialist enclave--not a nation-state, of course.
I think Peter Hitchens (my personal fave) writes a weekly column for the Sun, but it may be the Mail. I always forget because I get them all when I'm home.
There is huge section of the Tory party that's conservative, but like the old guard GOP, there are lots of go-along-to-get-along, Bob Michel Tories. I adore Ian Duncan Smith. He blows the Evil Pixie into the popcorn machine during Prime Ministers Questions.
I loved LePen's speech, in his defense, when he said, "Last week I was a respected French politician. This week, I'm the devil." So true.
Unfortunately in the modern political world of Leftwing media control and exported Carville smear campaigns, there remains two kinds of conservative candidates...the kind that is so squeeky clean as to be lifeless and the Nazi.
There are alot of things I do like about it. Immigrants are, on average, much younger the native population in America, and are more likely (even adjusting for their younger age) to be employed. Take Pakistanis, for example. First and second generation immigrants from this poor, third world country actually earn more than the average American (same is true of Indians, who have very similar demographics as far as immigrants). Why? Because they are the most highly educated immigrant group America has ever had.
Not that facts matter to the hysterical anti-immigrant paleo-conservatives, or their friends in the big labor left.
Nonsense. People are not goods and services. Free flow of goods and services renders free flow of people unnecessary.
Nope. Sorry, but jpsb is right (in this limited respect) about us neo-cons, and your claim is nonsense.
Of course there is a labor market, just as there are markets for goods and services. How do you think you and your employer reach an agreement about your wages and benefits, and why do you think those are generally comensurate with those of other workers who share your educational, skill and productivity level, yet may vary from region to region? Anytime individuals or economic entitities reach agreements about prices, whether it be the price of a pound of bananas, or the price for the services of a lathe operator, you have a market operating.
Equally clearly, the movement of laborers (or their entries into or out of different occupations) certainly does effect the labor market.
BTW (leaving aside, just for the moment, the need for greater security due to the threat of terrorism) tightening up our border with Mexico has actually made the immigration problem worse. Your average Mexican peasant understands the labor market much better than you appear to. He comes to the America (yes, often crossing the border illegally) when there are jobs to be had. When jobs are not available he heads back to Mexico where he can live cheaply, or use the money he earned in America to buy building materials for the home he is building for his retirement.
Study after study has shown that the population of Mexican illegals in America at any one time tracks the job market almost exactly. That is, it did until we began to tighten up the border. Now illegals know that if they leave America it may be nearly impossible, or at least very expensive or dangerous, to return. Now, instead of traveling back and forth, tracking the labor market, they stay regardless, and, when the labor market is down, consume food stamps rather than contribute withholding taxes.
What we "neo-cons" believe, or at least what this neo-con believes, is that a sensible immigration policy is one that will allow as many who are willing to work, and able to find and keep work, to come to the country and remain in the country. IOW, fill the available job market with legal immigrants. At the same time paths to citizenship which are transparent and available to all with a clean record as visa holders, but which require a thorough education in American governance and values, should be made available.
Hitchens writes for The Mail on Sunday.
This is the URL of his home page:
http://www.peterhitchens.com/home.html
Please answer all of the above questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.