No discussion allowed on immigration

Meanwhile, here’s an account of Ducking the debate on immigration in the UK. Not that different from the situation in the US, or from any social issue in the West generally. Our rulers won’t discuss anything serious, and if you raise any issues you’re divisive and intolerant—after all, issues divide and they arise only when someone doesn’t like something—so you don’t belong in public discussion.

5 thoughts on “No discussion allowed on immigration”

  1. The fact that the Home
    The fact that the Home Office “has no view” on the desirable level of immigration into Britain is not at all surprising, but is perfectly consistent with the liberal immigration ideology. As I wrote in my 1990 pamphlet The Path to National Suicide, the immigrants are not being admitted for any positive reason aimed at benefitting the host country; they are being admitted in order to demonstrate that the host society DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE against any persons of any racial or cultural background. Since there is no substantive, objective good for the host society that is being sought in the immigration, there are no objective criteria as to what level of immigration may be harmful to the host society.

  2. Are there any modernized
    Are there any modernized nations outside of Asia where one can argue for restricted immigration and not be treated like a pariah?

    America has millions upon millions of people—including plenty of immigrants—who would love to see the border protected from interlopers. Yet nobody in power wants to touch the issue.

    Auster wrote that pamphlet in 1990 and all we’ve done is tread water since.

  3. Current immigration policy
    Current immigration policy exists for the benefit of migrants, NOT American citizens. In fact it is extremely harmful to Americans. That is the message that needs to get out.

  4. On one hand, as I said
    On one hand, as I said before, there can be no limit to the “desirable” amount of immigration because the purpose of the immigration is purely procedural: to demonstrate the non-discriminatory, egalitarian virtue of the receiving society.

    On the other hand, even in a substantive sense there can be no limit to a desirable amount of immigration, at least from the point of view of the receiving country, because the immigration does not exist for the sake of the receiving country, but for the sake of the immigrants.

    Anthony Browne makes that point at the end of the linked article:

    “The truth is that Britain doesn’t want or need immigration running at the level it is at the moment: there is no justification for it from the perspective of the natives of these isles. The honest answer is that such high levels of immigration are not in the interests of Britain, but in the interests of the immigrants.

    “All the record net immigration to Britain is people from the developing world and Eastern Europe, seeking better lives than they can get in their home countries. There’s nothing wrong with that, but that’s the honest answer to my question—and none of the pro-immigrationists seems prepared to admit it.”

    From the truth that immigration exists in order to allow the immigrants to improve their life opportunities, a further consequence follows: As the quality of life continues to decline in Britain as a result of immigration, it will still be much better than than quality of life in the immigrants’ native countries, and so the immigrants will continue to come. The immigration will only be adjudged to have reached an “undesirable” level—which means, UNDESIRABLE TO THE IMMIGRANTS THEMSELVES—when the quality of life in Britain descends below that of Africa and Pakistan.

    The Western countries’ goal of demonstrating their belief in equality via openness to Third World immigration will only have been fulfilled when the Western world becomes, in actual, substantive fact, equal to the Third World.

  5. I think life in Britain or
    I think life in Britain or the US or wherever can be made miserable for third world immigrants without reducing the quality of life for indigenous white citizens as well.


Leave a Comment