The interests of each nation’s own citizens must take priority over those of immigrants

by Gramfan on March 27, 2013

in Gramfan (team member), immigration, Mexico, PC MC, UK

Such is not the case in the US, Canada, Australia, or the EU.

Daily Mail (UK): Why we on the Left made an epic mistake on immigration

By David Goodhart

Among Left-leaning ‘Hampstead’ liberals like me, there has long been what you might call a ‘discrimination assumption’ when it comes to the highly charged issue of immigration.

Our instinctive reaction has been that Britain is a relentlessly racist country bent on thwarting the lives of ethnic minorities, that the only decent policy is to throw open our doors to all and that those with doubts about how we run our multi-racial society are guilty of prejudice.

And that view — echoed in Whitehall, Westminster and town halls around the country — has been the prevailing ideology, setting the tone for the immigration debate.

But for some years, this has troubled me and, gradually, I have changed my mind.

Over 18 months of touring the country to talk to people about their lives for a new book, I have discovered minority Britons thriving more than many liberals suppose possible. But I also saw the mess of division and conflict we have got ourselves into in other places.

I am now convinced that public opinion is right and Britain has had too much immigration too quickly.

For 30 years, the Left has blinded itself with sentiment about diversity. But we got it wrong.

In many places immigration is working as the textbooks say it should with a degree of harmony, with minorities upwardly mobile and creating interesting new hybrid identities in mixed suburbs.

But it has also resulted in too many areas in which ethnic minorities lead almost segregated lives — notably in the northern ‘mill towns’ and other declining industrial regions, which in the Sixties and Seventies attracted one of the most clannish minorities of modern times, rural Kashmiri Pakistanis.

In Leicester and Bradford, almost half of the ethnic population live in what are technically ghettos (defined as areas where minorities form more than two-thirds of the population). Meanwhile, parts of white working-class Britain have been left feeling neither valued nor useful, believing that they have been displaced by newcomers not only in the job market but also in the national story itself.

Those in the race lobby have been slow to recognise that strong collective identities are legitimate for majorities as well as minorities, for white as well as for black people.

For a democratic state to have any meaning, it must ‘belong’ to existing citizens. They must have special rights over non-citizens. Immigration must be managed with their interests in mind. But it has not been.

The justification for such a large and unpopular change has to be that the economic benefits are significant and measurable. But they are not.

One of the liberal elite’s myths is that we are a ‘mongrel nation’ that has always experienced high inflows of outsiders. But this isn’t true. From 1066 until 1950, immigration was almost non-existent (excluding Ireland) — a quarter of a million at the most, mainly Huguenots and Jews.

Post-World War II immigration has been on a completely different scale from anything that went before. These days, more people arrive on our shores as immigrants in a single year than did so in the entire period from 1066 to 1950, excluding wartime.

Much of this happened by accident. When the 1948 Nationality Act was passed — giving all citizens of the Empire and Commonwealth the right to live and work in Britain — it was not expected that the ordinary people of poor former colonies would arrive in their hundreds of thousands.

Nor was it expected after 1997 that a combination of quite small decisions would lead to 1.5 million East Europeans arriving, about half to settle. But come they did, and a net immigration of around four million foreign-born citizens since 1997 has produced easily the most dramatic demographic revolution in British history.

Yet there was no general discussion in the New Labour Cabinet of the day about who Britain wanted to let in and in what numbers; no discussion about how the country could absorb them without pressure on public services.

By the time of the next census in 2021, the non-white minority population will have risen to around 20 per cent, a trebling in just 25 years.

By 2066, according to one demographer, white Britons will be in a minority.

This is already the case in some towns and cities, including London, Leicester, Slough and Luton, with Birmingham expected to follow in the near future.

If Britain had a clear and confident sense of its national culture and was good at integrating people, then perhaps this speed of change would be of little concern. But this is not the case.

We are deep into a huge social experiment. To give it a chance of working, we need to heed the ‘slow down’ signs that the electorate is waving. And all the more so given that the low economic growth era we are now in means people’s grievances cannot easily be bought off with rising wages and public spending.

The fact is that the whole post-war process of immigration has been badly managed or, rather, not managed at all.

It is often said that the importation of people from the Indian subcontinent to work in textile mills that were soon to close — ironically, partly thanks to competition from India and Pakistan itself — was a poor piece of social engineering.

But the whole point was that no one really engineered it. It just happened.

And then no one came forward to grasp the consequences or even acknowledge there might be a problem.

The fault lies with our leaders, not with the people who came for a better life. There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite’s views and those of ordinary people on the street. This was brought home to me when dining at an Oxford college and the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’
[…]
Read the rest.

Mexico, on the other hand, puts its native-born citizens first:

Michelle Malkin: How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens

American politicians in both parties are stampeding all over themselves to pander to Mexico and adopt mass illegal alien amnesty schemes. But while the Mexican government lobbies for more “humane” treatment of illegal border crossers from their country into ours, Mexico remains notoriously restrictionist toward “undesirable” foreigners who break their laws or threaten their security.Despite widely touted immigration “reforms” adopted in 2011, Mexico still puts Mexico first — as any country that is serious about protecting its sovereignty should and would.

Article 33 of Mexico’s constitution establishes the right of the president to detain and deport “any foreigner” and prohibits foreigners from participating “in any way” in the political affairs of the country.

While you read this passage, dwell on the demagogic rhetoric of meddling Mexican consular officials and lobbyists who assail America for its (poorly enforced) detention and deportation policies:

“The President of the Republic shall have the power to expel from national territory any foreigner, according to the law and after a hearing. The law shall establish the administrative procedure for this purpose, as well as the place where the foreigner should be detained and the time for that. Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

Article 32 of Mexico’s constitution unapologetically bans non-native born residents from holding sensitive jobs and joining the country’s military. Preference is given unabashedly to Mexicans over foreigners.

While you read this passage, contemplate the inexorable push by open-borders groups to secure illegal alien “rights” to American jobs, American military assignments, American driver’s licenses, discounted U.S. college tuition and Obamacare:

“Only Mexicans by birth can perform all government employments, positions, or commissions in which the status of citizenship is indispensable. During peacetime, foreigners shall neither serve in the Army nor in the police bodies. During peacetime, only Mexicans by birth can serve in the Army, in the Navy or in the Air Force as well can perform any employment or commission within such corporations. 

The same condition applies to captains, pilots, skippers, ship engineers, flight engineers and, in general, to every crew member in a ship or an airplane carrying the Mexican flag. In the same way, only Mexicans by birth can be port harbormasters, steersmen and airport superintendents. 

Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners, under equal circumstances, for all kind of concessions, employments, positions or commissions of the government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.”

While amnesty advocates and civil liberties zealots in the U.S. decry “police state” tactics against illegal aliens, Mexico fiercely maintains laws against illegal border crossings; “verification visits” to enforce visa conditions; requirements that foreigners produce proof of legal status on demand; and enforcement and cooperation between and among immigration officials and law enforcement authorities at all levels in Mexico. Native-born Mexicans are also empowered to make citizens arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest at any time. And for those seeking permanent residency or naturalization, Mexico requires that they must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

Applicants are assessed based on a point system using factors such as level of education, employment experience, and scientific and technological knowledge. Property acquisition and ownership by foreigners is still severely restricted. Mexican corporations are banned from hiring illegal aliens.

Exit question: If such self-interested “nativism” is right and good for the protection and survival of Mexico, why not for the United States?

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

1 guest March 28, 2013 at 8:32 am

Three reasons for the British politician’s article in the Daily Mail:
1. The two major parties, Labur and Tories, lost unexpectedly to UKIP (independence party) in some local elections, so are trying to sound concerned at the hell they intentionally inflicted (in 2010, an official with the Labour Party admitted in the press that Labour had deliberately imported millions of invaders in order to racially, religiously and culturally change forever the foundations of Great Britain and “to rub their opponents’ noses” in the electoral losses they’d experience because parasites always vote for Left/Labour/Socialist parties’ welfare benefit handouts). The Tories don’t object to mass invasion {I don’t call it ‘immigration’} because they support the EU and want Britain as the leader of it {ain’t never going to happen, the EU is a French/German construct} and the Tories also support Turkey’s entry into the EU {that’s already a fait accompli by the EU granting Turks rights to social benefits in every EU country; nobody bothered to let the European peoples in on this deal that took effect in 2012}
2. The Left is so confident of its defeat of the Caucasian Christian English, Scots, Irish and Welsh natives of the United Kingdom that they feel they can now afford to deign to discuss this issue, having spent decades accusing anyone who raised concerns about the Third World invasion (of Moslems, gypsies, East Europeans, Africans, Orientals) as ‘racist,’ ‘xenophobic,’ nationalist’, ‘islamophobic,’ and that grand old standby, ‘Nazi’ or ‘Far Right’. That the NAZIS were actually the Socialists, and therefore, left national Communists as opposed initially to the left international Communists of the Soviet Union, is known to everyone except, it seems, brain-dead lefties.
3. Goodhart is hoping no one mentions the other engine for the destruction of Britain and the attempted cultural genocide of the English: the European Union, and the deal it made with the Middle Eastern oil countries of OPEC in the early 1970s; that, in return for unlimited European access to ME oil, Europe, as the then EEC and later EU, would agree to the UNLIMITED influx {legal and illegal} of Moslems into Europe. This is no conspiracy, it’s all listed in numerous official documents. Bat Yeor’s book detailing this, EURABIA, is over 50% full of these accords, agreements, etc. There are myriad departments in the EU which concern themselves with the facilitation of the islamization of Europe and its peoples (clothes, laws, food, school curricula, holidays, etc). Once people know this, they realize the depth of treason by all parties (Labour removed the crime of ‘treason’ from the lawbooks when it was in power).

2 Gramfan March 28, 2013 at 6:46 pm

This was also documented in Oriana Fallaci’s book – “The Force of Reason”.
The EU is a disgrace. Nothing good has come out of it.

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: