Numbers are of the Essence

Posted by Leon Haller on December 28, 2011, 11:56 PM | #

Excellent article, informative and well-written - with an exception in the very last line. I did not see anything in the analysis demonstrating that most permanent migrants to Britain are NOT highly skilled workers, only that a not overwhelming majority of them are from the Third World (with possible slight exceptions in SA/Rhodesia, as we don’t know from the data how many of that particular migrant stream are white). [In truth, I did not read any of the html links.]

Correct me if I err, but I thought the UK did put a greater emphasis on skilled migration than at least we in the US do. Maybe some of those Indians, Pakis (more doubtful), Chinese, etc are professionals. Of course, that doesn’t mean they should be admitted. Cultural (which includes racial) compatibility ought to be uppermost among admission considerations, assuming any migration is allowed at all.

Another question I’d like to have answered is what percentage of the admittees from Western nations are themselves white. In this morning’s (12-28) Wall Street Journal, I read a review by a typically brain-challenged libertarian of a new book, Borderless Economics, by yet another neoliberal fanatic. The reviewer quoted from the book about the common practice of circuitous immigration (I forget the exact term used), whereby, eg, Chinese first emigrate to Australia, gain citizenship there solely because it is allegedly easier to emigrate to the US from Oz than China, and then eventually apply to the US as “Australians” (both reviewer and book author thought this an outrageous inconvenience, and wanted the Yellow Hordes to be able to invade California directly, at their pleasure, as it were). I wonder about the race of those 80,000 migrants from Western countries in 2010.

Is it thus fair to say, in rough measure, that the UK is taking in 200,000 nonwhites per year (I assume the 2010 figure is roughly similar to those of the whole Labour reign)? And any estimate of permanently settling illegal aliens?

I find this all totally disturbing. Even from a deracinated commercial perspective, does the UK actually need any migrants?

Posted by Papa Luigi on December 29, 2011, 01:32 AM | #

Leon Haller on December 28, 2011, 11:56 PM

Excellent article, informative and well-written - with an exception in the very last line. I did not see anything in the analysis demonstrating that most permanent migrants to Britain are NOT highly skilled workers, only that a not overwhelming majority of them are from the Third World ...

Hi Leon, if you lived in the UK you would be aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Third World immigrants are unskilled. I can appreciate why it would be nice to present an argument leaving no room for our opponents to prevaricate , but published official statistics in the UK are deliberately formulated in such a way as to make analysis such as Dan dare have provided almost impossible and sometimes certain self-evident facts have to be accepted as a ‘given’.

Correct me if I err, but I thought the UK did put a greater emphasis on skilled migration than at least we in the US do.

No Leon, sadly that is a fallacy perpetuated by our corrupt media/government. In reality, the UK has open borders.

Maybe some of those Indians, Pakis (more doubtful), Chinese, etc are professionals. Of course, that doesn’t mean they should be admitted ...

A very small proportion are, but there are no checks on their ability to speak English and non-White doctors feature disproportionately in terms of their culpability in professional negligence cases and the incidence of sexual offences committed by male health professionals against White female patients.

Another question I’d like to have answered is what percentage of the admittees from Western nations are themselves white.

Now that is a very pertinent question Leon, ‘circuitous immigration’, as you call it is evidently taking place in a significant number of cases.

Is it thus fair to say, in rough measure, that the UK is taking in 200,000 nonwhites per year (I assume the 2010 figure is roughly similar to those of the whole Labour reign)? ,

Correct!

I find this all totally disturbing. Even from a deracinated commercial perspective, does the UK actually need any migrants?

No, the UK does not need any migrants. The ones that are highlighted by the liberal establishment as examples of the skilled workers that we ‘need’ are invariably doctors, nurses and IT professionals, however every year tens of thousands of newly qualified doctors and nurses of indigenous British origin are forced to emigrate to Australia and the US to find work, because all of the vacancies for their profession in the UK have been taken by immigrants prepared to work for lower salaries. Furthermore, unemployment amongst indigenous British IT workers is widespread.

The clincher as far as all these issues surrounding immigration are concerned, is that of all the instances of blunders and mistakes that routinely take place, where mistakes or omissions are made by the UK Border Agency and the like, such errors and omissions almost invariably have the effect of letting massively more immigrants into the country than should otherwise have legally been admitted.

If these ‘errors and omissions’ were genuine ‘errors and omissions’, then a reasonable proportion of them at least would have had the effect of wrongfully preventing some ‘deserving’ immigrants from settling in this country, but ‘errors and omissions’ of this sort are incredibly rare, and on the very, very rare occasions when they do occur, the obstruction is quickly removed and the ‘victim’ generously compensated at public expense, but no one ever suggests that we should send back the tens of thousands of those that have wrongfully gained admission to the UK as a result of mistakes in the immigrants’ favour.

What this shows is that the complete incompetence of the UK Border Agency is not an accident. A previous Labour Home Affairs Minister reluctantly described the UK Border Agency as ‘unfit for purpose’, but no one has since set about rectifying the situation and while all sorts of measures are periodically announced by government supposedly with the intention of reducing immigration, there are always gaping holes in the legislation concerned such that it is ineffectual, and the numbers of immigrants both legal and illegal continues to rise un-abated.

Posted by Leon Haller on December 29, 2011, 02:21 AM | #

Papa Luigi,

Thanks for the response. I think the crux is this:

What this shows is that the complete incompetence of the UK Border Agency is not an accident. (PL)

I used to think that the catastrophe in the USA was really an (as it’s been called) “accidental revolution” (ie, in demographics). There may even have been some truth to this description at the beginning of the rev. I continue not to believe that all of the Congressmen who voted for the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 actively wanted to transform the USA into a nonwhite country. Certainly, they were sold on the changes with very explicit guarantees (those making them might well have been disingenuous) that the changes would not result in “millions {nb: if only millions!} of Asians and Africans flooding the country”. And I suppose that most voting aye really did have no conception of the sort of demographic revolution they were launching (though there were some Congressmen, like the great Sam Ervin, who did perceive and call attention to the potential threat).

But clearly, at some point along this particular road to Hell (eg, by the 1980 census, at the latest, when whites were still revealed to be slightly under 84% of the population, albeit falling rapidly), it became obvious what was going on. By that time, many conservatives just were too cowardly about broaching the issue, or at best indifferent, being still obsessed with anti-communism, and restoring free-market economic growth (although already by 1980 I recall my parents and extended family and their adult friends repeatedly denouncing continued immigration; in fairness, however, even in early 1986, when I mentioned immigration as an issue at a Young Republicans dinner at my elite East Coast university, it was largely brushed off as constituting a “local, California issue”, despite my vociferous arguments to the contrary).

More sinisterly, it seems clear in retrospect that, over time, many powerful persons specifically wanted (and still do) to turn white Americans into a (persecuted?) minority. Over the decades, I have actually wondered whether the same was true for Europe - that all the happy “diversity” or “human rights” talk wasn’t just standard liberal do-gooderism or general naivete, but a mask behind which were hiding genuine traitors or internal subversives who likewise actually wanted to transform normal, traditional European nations into fissiparous, dangerous, disunited, and simply alien ones. And yet, whenever I thought that, I, until recently, actually dismissed myself as over-paranoid. No, I kept correcting myself, the diversitycrats are not actual traitors, at least not in intent, but merely fools. They want immigration to be easy because they feel sorry for the asylees, and believe their hard luck stories - not because they actually want to shove diversity down the throats of whites and make us have to ‘negotiate’ it.

I now find myself believing my darkest suspicions of yore. There were persons in positions of power or influence who actively wanted to destroy white civilization, and who saw in demographic inundation a method for doing so, especially after communism’s demise (though they were pushing the race-replacement agenda long before the fall of the Wall). Such persons are most certainly deserving of capital punishment. 

Posted by Dirty Bull on December 29, 2011, 04:23 AM | #

The trouble is that the identity ‘British’ ha been so devalued and debased over the yeras that it means nothing.Any brown faced, black haired paki with a passport to wave calls himself and is called by the government ‘British’.
The term ‘English’ to describe nationality is catching on.‘English’ has the connotation of racial bloodline and phenotype - it will be hard to transduce its meaning.

Posted by Leon Haller on December 29, 2011, 04:33 AM | #

But let us hope an English nationalism will be a blood-and-soil ethnonationalism (I prefer WN, but would be very happy with vibrant ethnonationalisms across Europe), and not some variant of contemporary Scottish nationalism - a way for patriotic Englishmen to say “up yours” to Scottish nationalists, or those attached to the UK, but which otherwise does nothing about the racial problem, the real problem.

Posted by Dan Dare on December 29, 2011, 03:47 PM | #

The ultimate UKBA cock-up is without question the handling of the 450,000 ‘legacy cases’, files pertaining to asylum seekers whose cases had not been resolved before being dumped in a Croydon warehouse and ‘rediscovered’ in 2006. We have have discussed this previously here and here.

Coincidentally, I was trawling the proceedings of the Home Affairs Committee yesterday and came across evidence presented by the then-acting head* of UKBA as to the present status of this grand fiasco. It seems that the current state of play is as follows:

• 37,500 (7%) have been deported

• 172,000 (34%) have been given permission to stay, with a further 3,000 are awaiting final security checks

• 170,000 cases (34%) have some other conclusion, either a duplicate file, ‘database errors’, applicant now EU citizen, etc

• 98,500 (19%) reside in the ‘controlled archive’ for applicants who are now untraceable

• 18,000 (4%) remain to be resolved

Attentive readers will note that totalling the above gives a total of 505,500 cases, not 450,000, and that over 90% of the cases have resulted in the applicants receiving permission to stay, or simply quietly forgotten about and allowed to disappear into the undergrowth without further bureaucratic hindrance.

*The preceding Head of UKBA (a Ms Lin Homer), who presided over the fiasco in its formative stages was a career apparatchik who has since been promoted to the position of Permanent Undersecretary at the Department of Transportation. Just reward for a job well done, in the best Whitehall tradition! Sir Humphrey would be proud.

Posted by Dan Dare on December 29, 2011, 04:43 PM | #

Papa Luigi has responded to Leon Haller’s comments much as I would have done, but I would like to emphasise the general point that the official statistics do not facilitate the separation of the various migrant streams into their ethnic and racial components with mathematical precision (no doubt by design) so we have to resort to educated guesswork, in this particular instance by separating source and destination countries by their likely ethno-racial make-up.

It’s certainly the case that some migrants from Southern Africa will be white rather than black, and some from America may be black rather than white, but in the aggregate I suspect that these anomalies will tend to balance each other out.

As for Leon’s final point:

... does the UK actually need any migrants?

Certainly not on the scale that it has happened, nor of the type who have been admitted. That said, I think there is a case to be made for migration on a limited scale between developed countries of broadly similar socio-economic standing and with a common or shared cultural background, especially if there are genuine local shortages of particular skills or capabilities that such migrants might contribute.

Returning kith and kin fleeing pestholes like Zimbabwe should of course be permitted automatic free entry and not required to queue up as supplicants as if they were common-or-garden Africans.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 01, 2012, 02:51 PM | #

Earlier this week an http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/23/net-migration-britain-record-levels ]article[/url] in the Guardian reported that the coalition government’s ‘hopes of reducing net migration into Britain to below 100,000 have suffered a fresh blow’, with net migration actually rising from 235,000 to 250,000 during its first year in office. The principal reason is that, although immigration itself has remained stable, emigration has fallen, hence the rise in the figures for net migration.

As I argued above, the focus on headline figures for net migration is irrelevant for those among us who are concerned with the racial aspects of the ongoing demographic transformation. It is the net migration of foreigners, and particularly of third-worlders, which is of prime concern. As long as emigration is factored into the equation the net migration statistics will always lead to an impression that the third world influx is smaller than it is, simply because indigenous Britons (as opposed to “New Brits”) form by far the largest component of the emigration numbers.

As it happens, the Guardian article links to a recent report by the IPPR which helpfully encapsulates this notion in a single chart.

In this we see quite clearly that emigration (consisting principally of native Brits) has remained relatively stable since the early 90s (trending gently upwards as more Brits seek retirement in the sun), and it is the net inflow of foreigners which has increased dramatically over the period. Once again, it is important not to fall for the ‘net migration’ shell-game but to keep hammering at at the real issue: IMMIGRATION.