The Moral Case Against Mass Migration | Rhys Ainsworth
The disturbing image of a lifeless three-year-old Syrian child, washed up on a beach in Turkey was a defining moment in the trajectory of European civilisation. The media wasted no time in slapping this image on the front page of every major newspaper in the Western world and using it as a battering ram against our borders. Suddenly to be mildly sceptical toward the notion of open borders was to be pro-dead-brown-babies.
Similar tropes have begun to emerge concerning our “Afghan allies” to whom we are told it is our moral duty to immediately resettle in the West. A failure to rescue all those who may be “at risk” from the Taliban would apparently leave us with blood on our hands.
Such manipulative tactics are representative of the general discourse surrounding immigration. Immigration has been effectively reframed as a moral issue, merely the next civil rights frontier the West must overcome to reach salvation, thereby designating its supporters the unimpeachable Good Guys on the right side of history. Meanwhile, immigrants are the new black people to whom we owe compensation in the form of citizenship as a means of repenting for the original sin of imperialism.
Things weren’t always like this. Before Tony Blair, immigration was understood as a tool to improve the country in some way. In addition, our leaders bore in mind the destabilising impact large waves of migration might have on the nation’s social fabric. As such, between 1945 and 1995, annual net migration figures hovered around the 50,000 mark. All sense of discretion was abandoned with the premiership of Tony Blair who singlehandedly embarked on an ideological crusade to reimage the demographic composition of the country in pursuit of one goal – ‘multiculturism.’ Net migration currently stands at 300,000 people per year.
Two decades later and White Brits are a minority in London. Zoom in on the pockets of the North of England that have seen the most migration and ask the residents whether they think this experiment has worked. Are the towns happier, safer, or more prosperous? Usually, the answer is no. In some cases, we see mini colonies being set up which, aside from the geography, don’t feel very British. The mere suggestion of assimilation is enough to spark an accusation of racism. These are big changes that nobody asked for and, if you consider the polling data, Brits have explicitly rejected.
The question is, do we as Brits have any say in the matter? According to the Good Guys – absolutely not. Apparently, our moral obligation lies not with actual Brits but with the world’s poor, even if it means the erosion of British culture. This logic only applies to Western nations. There is no scenario in which Japan must tolerate Tokyo becoming majority European.
Why must only Britain repent? Well, our thinking has been successfully subverted by relentless Britain bashers who have managed to convince us we no longer have anything worth preserving. Meanwhile, significantly less impressive countries with far uglier pasts (and presents, btw) get to be far more self-assured about preserving their national identity. Everyone else gets to be judged according to their historical highlight reel. Try expressing some mild concern about terrorism, and you’ll swiftly be reminded about the Islamic contribution to algebra in the year 800. Meanwhile, many such nations still have a slave trade to this day, and we invented the concept of liberty.
Multiculturalism is a fairly new experiment. Nonetheless, aside from John Lennon’s optimistic suggestion in Imagine, multiculturalism has a tendency to end in tears (CC: Ireland, Canada, Israel & Rwanda). This was certainly the consensus of prominent European leaders only ten years ago. That’s not to say Britain must pursue a homogenous ethno-state or anything of the sort. Fundamentally, however, we must be able to unite around some common themes. Like a football team – we can all play different positions, but we must be shooting in the same direction.
Diversity Isn’t Always a Strength
A relentless pursuit of multiculturalism in combination with a worrying lack of national self-esteem has left our lawmakers in a state of moral paralysis when our most basic values are threatened. Our sheepishness surrounding our liberal values leaves us with no moral vocabulary to push back against menacing illiberal encroachments. So, when a primary school teacher is hounded with death threats after daring to show a picture of the Prophet Muhammad in class, instead of immediately rejecting the notion of Islamic blasphemy laws in Britain in the name of secularism, we curl up in the name of inclusion.
Our authorities have adopted a ‘if a tree falls in the woods and there’s no one around to hear, it didn’t make a sound’ sort of approach to immigrant crime. This is exemplified by the grooming gang issue. Despite vigorous assurances from The Good Guys – that Muslim grooming gangs merely represent the bigoted fever dreams of a few paranoid gammons seeking to ignite the race war – the work of a few brave souls like Professor Alexis Jay has revealed a grim trend. In addition to documenting a widespread practice of rape, abuse and exploitation of young English girls by disproportionately Muslim-Pakistani men, even more shocking is a concentred effort by the authorities to cover it up. Time and again individuals at different levels of government report being explicitly instructed not to pursue a particular line of enquiry on the basis it might be seen as racist to do so. We see a similar situation play out during the Manchester Arena Bombing in which a security guard ignored his instincts and avoided confronting a solo 22-year-old Muslim man carrying an oversized rucksack at an Ariana Grande concert for fear of ‘stereotyping.’
Finally in 2018, after decades of inaction, the Home Office announced a no-holds-barred inquiry into the national scandal of child grooming gangs. “Political sensitivities”, Sajid Javid proudly announced, would no longer get in the way of pursuing child rapists. So brave. Indeed, fast forward a year and that is exactly what happened. After initial attempts to block the report’s publication on the basis it was “not in the public interest”, it was eventually released thanks to public pressure. However, in a pathetic but unsurprising abdication of responsibility, the Home Office refused to draw any conclusions surrounding the ethnocultural patterns of the perpetrators, rendering the report utterly useless.
In short, so long as the position of the British state is: we would rather our children were impaled by nail bombs and pimped en masse by grooming gangs than, God forbid, somebody be labelled a bigot, perhaps we should press the pause button on mass immigration.
The Good Guys have successfully gaslit many into believing immigration is somehow immune to the basic laws of economics. For Britain, the most predictable strain falls on our public services. Key word: public i.e., taxpayer funded. You needn’t be an economist to recognise that importing 300,000 people into your country each year, none of which have paid a penny in tax, and granting them full access to public services might be unsustainable in the long run.
The consequences of such an economically illiterate position defines our politics. Every winter the NHS tapers on the edge of total collapse due to the sheer demand of patients despite an increase in funding. Housing shortages mean acres of greenspace must be turfed over each year and replaced with brand new cities to accommodate the growing population. This isn’t complicated – resources are finite so people must be restricted.
Before the Labour Party abandoned the working class to pursue its own brand of race communism, it recognised that the economic benefits of mass immigration accrued mainly to the mega rich. Somewhere in an alternate dimension its Jeremy Corbyn down at the border, not Nigel Farage, with a blowhorn in hand demanding a total and complete shutdown of unskilled migration in the interests of the British worker. Again, the rationale is painfully straightforward. Why hire a Brit who will demand minimum wage and employment rights – when you can exploit the labour of a desperate Polish migrant for half the price?
How is it that those advocating for a state of neo-serfdom in which elites import foreign peasants and pay them crap wages to “pick our fruit” in the hot sun while competing with British workers get to pose as The Good Guys?
The question at the heart of the immigration debate is simple: what is best for Britain and British people? Our ruling class has the inverse view. For them, Britain exists to benefit any potential immigrant who might wish to come here. If Britain wishes to preserve its identity – the same identity that attracted migrants here in the first place – it should run its borders with the same ruthless selectivity as the ivy league universities demanding open borders. We must regain our confidence as a nation and cease approaching this issue on the defensive. No longer can we afford to be swept along by their pre-packaged moralistic rhetoric. They don’t have a monopoly on righteousness. The real moral imperative lies not in accommodating every sad person wishing for a better life in Britain but in the conservation of good old fashioned British liberal values. It’s time to say enough is enough.