Immigration

I was very affected by the article written by Max Hastings in the Mail. This is of course the purpose of the Mail to stir up irrational emotions in the reader disregarding fact but regarding fervour. However having established this about the Mail I am not sure about this piece, it is very well written I must concede (if you have not read it yet). Which is why I now have taken it upon myself to talk about some of the issues it raises. This being an article about immigration you must now assume that I am racist if you are still hooked in the smoldering Britain created by New Labour, where political correctness is law. Thankfully I believe people are starting to catch onto to the lie and normal conversation is slowly starting to reappear. We can only assume that when the Tories reach government they will abolish at least some of the PC.

The article describes how, in fact, we have been mislead by the ONS (Office for National Statistics) and that 'Mohammed' (in all its forms) is really the third most popular name in the UK, disloging 'Thomas' from that spot. There are two theories about this revelation (which was revealed back in 2007 as well...) either Muslims breed a lot more than normal people in conjunction with extremely high levels of immigration or all Muslim families name their male children 'Mohammed' as a homage to the Prophet. The former is not a theory as much as a fact. The latter however we must discuss.

Muslims do like their Prophet-a lot-so it is appropriate for them to name their sons 'Mohammed' to pay their respects sort to speak. While the statistics show that 'Mohammed' is the third most popular name it is partially because, well, every single Muslim boy is called 'Mohammed' but has a couple of other names so to not confuse the rest of us. Observe:

'Hi there could I pay with my card please?' says customer.

'Sure thing just sign here' says waiter.

'M-o-h-a-m-m-e-d S-h-a-k-i-l C-o-s-b-y'

Waiter walks away with the machine, gets stabbed and subsequently a new waiter has to give the card back to our Mohammed. The new waiter having no clue as to who the customer is exclaims, loudly, in the middle of the dining room, 'I am looking for a Mohammed Shakil Cosby - is he here?'

'Here!' ejaculate fifteen different people. Had she said only 'Shakil Cosby' the issue would have been quickly resolved but she fell into a particular Muslims trap whereby most Muslim boys are called 'Mohammed' in some form or another in their name.

However this is only half the truth. The name 'Mohammed' has not but one spelling but 14. Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non-Muslim one. While they like to call their boys 'Mohammed' they do have a very much higher birth rate than to non-Muslims and as such we are indeed seeing an explosion in babies born to Muslims parents - who themselves can expect to be raised as Muslims. Is this a new phenomenon? Well yes quite frankly it is. The name Mohammed only made it into The 30 Names in the UK, in 2000. Which you will agree is very recently. Moreover in 2001, the average size of a Muslim household was 3.8 people while a third contained more than five people.

Simply put we wont be seeing Shari law in the UK anytime soon (well there are already 60 Shari courts with "laws" that are legally enforceable) but it is very inaccurate to claim that the Muslim population is growing alarmingly fast. Why "alarmingly"? Because they are the least likely to integrate into the British society. And if you somehow manage to link that to racism please please please, I beg you, say so in the comment section and then back it up.

A poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting that the London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France.

Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%), Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%).

By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent. A significant majority viewed western populations as selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. Just over half said westerners were violent (the last one 'violent' is interesting since the police records of the last decade show "domestic violence" (man beating a woman) as 45-65% higher in Muslim homes than in any other communities, including the notoriously violent-towards-women African ones). While the overwhelming majority of European Muslims said westerners were respectful of women, fewer than half British Muslims agreed. Another startling result found that only 32% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable opinion of Jews, compared with 71% of French Muslims. Safe to say we are doing something very very wrong over here and I think it is quite simple; we are pandering to their differences and make it seem as if being British is a bad thing. While simply not saying 'no' when they overstep the mark and insult our culture (yes we actually do have one despite what the government says).

Moving on in 2007, 28 per cent of children born in England and Wales, rising to 54 per cent in London, had at least one foreign-born parent. In 2008, 14.4 per cent of primary school children claimed some other tongue than English as their first language.

But this is where we need to stop and think. How does this compare to other nations?

These are figures taken from here. They show the total number of immigrants in the country respectively.

# 1 United States: 38,355,000
# 2 Russia: 12,080,000
# 3 Germany: 10,144,000
# 4 Ukraine: 6,833,000
# 5 France: 6,471,000
# 6 Saudi Arabia: 6,361,000
# 7 Canada: 6,106,000
# 8 India: 5,700,000
# 9 United Kingdom: 5,408,000
# 10 Spain: 4,790,000

Those are raw numbers but if we look instead as percentage of the total population we might get something useful to play around with.

# 1 Holy See (Vatican City): 100
# 2 Andorra: 77.25
# 3 Qatar: 75.9
# 4 United Arab Emirates: 71.4
# 5 Monaco: 70.11
.
.
.
# 40 United States: 12.81
# 41 Germany: 12.31
# 42 Sweden: 12.3
# 43 Belarus: 12.21
# 44 Spain: 10.79
# 45 Grenada: 10.68
# 46 Libya: 10.56
# 47 Costa Rica: 10.19
# 48 France: 10.18
# 49 Netherlands: 10.05
# 50 Bahamas, The: 9.907
# 51 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 9.369
# 52 Barbados: 9.311
# 53 United Kingdom: 8.982

Presumably then all the other big western European countries must be in the same boat, n'est pas? Well perhaps and perhaps not, consider the net migration instead and then suddenly something interesting is revealed.

# 1 United States 26.8%
# 2 Afghanistan 9.9%
# 3 Spain 9.4%
# 4 Germany 5.1%
# 5 Canada 4.9%
# 6 United Arab Emirates 4.4%
# 7 United Kingdom 3.2%
Italy 2.8%
Australia 2.3%
Sierra Leone 2%
Russia 1.8%
France 1.4%
Hong Kong 1.4%
Eritrea 1.3%
Chad 1.3%
Japan 1.2%
Saudi Arabia 1.2%
Portugal 1.2%
Iraq 1.1%
Kuwait 1.1%

We have a very high net migration which in raw data becomes 686,400. And herein lies the real problem, for this is a problem, in 2008 the average number of people per square kilometre in Britain was 253, rising to 395 in England. Latest figures from Holland show that its population density was 395 a square kilometre in 2002 and 393 in 2005. It is estimated that English population density will rise to 464 people for every square kilometre by 2031.We are alas the most densely populated country in Europe and we have very high net migration. Germany has a much larger percentage of net migration but Germany is also a much larger country. If you bunch people together who have no inclination at all to be this 'friendly' it is a receipe for disaster. This is also, most likely, why the government sought to make the subject of immigration a 'non-mentionable' and label people who disobey them, racists. Furthermore why we cannot have a meaningful debate, yet, on the subject for it is assumed that anyone who does is just that; a racist.

Now Max Hastings said this very sensible line "No government massage of the numbers can blunt the fact that a host of migrants is here, most of whom espouse an entirely different cultural tradition from our own". You will all remember the series Star Trek and what is more the Borgs. They sought to 'assimilate' their enemies into the collective a sort of high-tech New Labourism/Socialism. Being the antagonists of the series the Borgs got a lot of crap but they got that one thing right, assimilation for it made them stronger. Now we do not have any fancy laser guns and we are no big fans of socialism either since it has ruined Britain, but 'integration' however is not too shabby at all. In fact it is quite beautiful when it works. But now we are really hitting the head of the issue.

The amount of people coming to Britain is overwhelming, there is no buffer capacity left to deal with the unheard of flow of immigrants. There are no social services, no schools, no hospitals no nothing which can properly take care of all these people. If there is no care then they turn to their own devices and turn away from Britain and lead their own little lives in, but not part of, these isles. When they come in small trickles they are easy to deal with, to share our values (yes we do have values even though the government will tell you otherwise) with and to show them 'This is Britain - enjoy!' But if you overwhelm a nation you create fear, fear of the new, because they have not been integrated, they are just foreigners and nothing else in the eyes of the public. That public, as the European elections showed us, seems to have had enough (1,000,000 out of 15,000,000 voted for the BNP...)

The British are not racist, not at all, probably the least racist nation in Europe and possibly the world. But, and this is a very big but, if you create the kind of conditions that New Labour has there is nothing but despair left to feed the masses. Whether or not "the immigrants are stealing the jobs" is true or not (more than seven in 10 jobs created under the Labour government have been taken by foreign workers, according to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), it becomes true for they along with the government are the scapegoats. "Because we know this, because we have lost confidence in our own cultural identity, we flail and blather about how to respond to the unprecedented ethnic and demographic turmoil which our politicians have unleashed upon us".

Do not expect any miracles from New Labour before they are assassinated. According to Migration Watch UK net immigration has quadrupled since 1997 to 237,000 a year and to keep the population of the UK below 70 million, immigration must be reduced by 75%. Government measures so far may reduce it by 5%.

Enter Cameron and friends who will do two things:

1. Put a cap on the number of immigrants entering the UK from outside the EU.
2. Not face up to the EU - that is to say they will not represent the wishes of the electorate.

In fact if the man plays his cards as he has done thus far you can be quite sure that #1 is nothing but plain rhetoric. Yes, there is global recession going on and yes Britain is by far the most screwed. But with increasing unemployment he cannot allow this level of immigration. If people start drawing parallels between unemployment and immigrants he will have riots and that is not scaremongering that is the simple truth.