THE MILNER-FABIAN CONSPIRACY

 

 

 

 

Is there a “need” for immigrants?

 

6 January 2013

 

 

This question is investigated here on data related to Britain as a representative example, but the results are largely applicable to other European or Western countries. Specifically, it has been claimed that Britain “needs skilled workers”; that “immigration is good for the economy”; that immigration “creates jobs”; that Britain “needs immigration to sustain the current population level,” etc. The following facts expose the Big Immigration Lie:

 

1. It goes without saying that not all immigrants are skilled, many are unskilled. Even skilled immigrants may have unskilled wives, children or parents. As a result, along with the “skilled workers” there are a high number of unskilled workers.

 

2. Many immigrants – housewives, children, students, retired persons – are economically inactive, i.e., non-workers. This is particularly the case with immigrants who come to Britain (and Europe) in the context of “family reunification” and, failing to meet labour market requirements, struggle to find work (Lords Select Committee, pp. 17-18). 

    

In the 1950s and 60s many immigrants came to Britain to take up employment. By 1997, only 12% of immigrants from the former New Commonwealth entered Britain for work (Caldwell, p. 41). Official reports show that immigrants are more likely to be out of work than British people (“Labour’s cover-up on immigration to be laid bare,” Sunday Telegraph, 25 Sept. 2011). It follows that the proportion of skilled workers, indeed of workers in general, to the total immigrant population is much lower than it is claimed.

 

3. Even if all immigrants were skilled (which they are not), it does not mean that they all have the skills British economy needs. Nor is there a system to insure that those who come to Britain have the required skills.

 

4. If Britain is short on skilled workers, this is obviously a failure of the education system and the question must be raised as to whether this failure is accidental or deliberate. In either case, the solution is to reform the education system and train local workers, not to import foreign ones. This is particularly imperative in view of the fact that, as admitted by Peter Sutherland, shortage of workers in the European Union is to be found at the lowest rather than at the top skill level (Lords Select Committee, p. 13).

 

5. Saying that immigration is good for the economy implies that everything is acceptable as long as it brings financial profit. Thus, from the outset, this claim exposes the moral bankruptcy of the pro-immigration camp. In addition, while it may be acceptable to believe that immigration is “good” for the economy when the economy is strong, it seems irrational to cling on to the same belief when the economy evidently is on a downward path despite a massive influx of immigrants. Moreover, economic systems are not God-given; they are man-made. And if man can create economies that depend on immigrants, he can equally well devise an economy that does not. As no attempt is being made to do so, this suggests an ulterior motive on the part of the authorities responsible. What these motives are will become apparent from the evidence considered below. Meanwhile, suffice it to note that the relentless emphasis on economic considerations irrespective of the realities on the ground is a long-established tactic to deflect attention from other issues.

 

6. Even assuming that immigration is “good” for the economy in some ways, there is no doubt that it is bad in other ways. For example, illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Most immigrants send money back home, exporting capital that should be reinvested in British economy, not taken out of the country, etc.

 

7. If immigration creates new jobs, then the more immigration there is the more new jobs are created. But the more new jobs are created, the greater becomes the need for immigration. It follows that instead of resolving anything, immigration creates an inescapable vicious circle which critics have (not unreasonably) described as an “addiction to immigrants.”

 

8. As admitted by a number of political leaders, including pro-immigration ones like Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, immigration brings not only benefits but also costs (E. Miliband, “Immigration brings costs as well as benefits,” Evening Standard, 22 Jun. 2012). Particularly important in the current economic situation is the loss of employment caused to the indigenous population by mass immigration, especially from outside the EU. As conceded by the Migration Advisory Committee, one hundred additional non-EU immigrants result in a “reduction in employment of 23 native workers” (MAC, “Analysis of the Impacts of Migration,” Jan. 2012).

 

9. Immigration is one of the causes behind the rise in crime levels. For example, religion-motivated terrorism, honour killings, forced marriage, child marriage, polygamy, genital mutilation, are culture-specific crimes that are directly linkable to the immigrant population.

 

10. Importing people from abroad is an irrational and perverse approach to demographic problems. To maintain Britain’s current population level, all that is needed is for British couples to have more children and government policies in this regard to be introduced.

 

11. Nobody knows how many illegal immigrants there are in Britain. Estimates range between 250,000 (Migration Watch UK) and 500,000 (Home Office), with some sources giving an upper limit of 1 million (UK Border Force, Sky2, 10 Jun. 2012). As it is not known who they are or what they are doing in Britain, nothing definite can be said on their effect on British economy and culture. However, we do know that a significant number of the illegal immigrants who have been tracked down by the authorities are small-time criminals, terrorists or fraudsters. There is no reason to believe that those who are still at large are any better. They certainly do not pay taxes and if any of them are in employment they take away jobs from people who are here legally, including indigenous Britons. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the overall impact of illegal immigration on British society is negative.

 

12. The truth is that immigration serves the interests of corrupt employers who are looking for cheap labour and would rather pay low wages to immigrants than pay decent wages to British workers. Inevitably, this results in lower living standards for the indigenous population (Lilley, 2006). As a number of studies have shown, mass immigration has pushed wages down (“Hello, world,” The Economist, 30 Jun. 2012). Even in traditional immigration countries like America, salaries have decreased for the first time on record, despite or because of unprecedented mass immigration (“5 Most Surprising Findings From the 2010 Census,” Time, 20. Dec. 2011).

 

13. Immigration also serves the interests of left-wing financial groups. The governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, is on record as saying that cheap foreign labour helps keep wages down. Lord Digby Jones, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) which was created by Shell, BP, Ford and associated interests, has declared that a cap on immigration would reduce the “flexibility” of the British labour market (“Figuring out role of migrant workers,” Financial Times, 4 May 2005). Perhaps most revealing of all is the stand of the money power organs, the Financial Times (FT) and The Economist, themselves. The FT, which is owned by the Lazard-associated Pearson, has long pronounced itself in favour of immigration (“The right must learn the comfort of the strangers: Conservatives are falling into the same trap as Republicans by railing against immigration, not supporting growth,” FT, 10 Apr. 2001), while The Economist, co-owned by the Rothschilds, has claimed that restricting the number of talented immigrants damages the City’s prospects (“Global finance: Save the City,” The Economist, 7 Jan. 2012).

 

14. Above all, immigration serves the interests of left-wing political elites using the immigrant community to advance their own agendas, for example, to make British society more multicultural or to win votes (“Paying the price for a decade of deception,” Daily Mail Online, 12 Feb. 2010; “How the Government pays Muslims to vote Labour,” Daily Telegraph, 17 March 2009).

 

 

 

Caldwell, Christopher, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, London, 2009.

E. Miliband, “Immigration brings costs as well as benefits,” Evening Standard, 22 Jun. 2012.

“Figuring out role of migrant workers,” Financial Times, 4 May 2005.

“5 Most Surprising Findings From the 2010 Census,” Time, 20. Dec. 2011.

“Global finance: Save the City,” The Economist, 7 Jan. 2012.

“Hello, world,” The Economist, 30 Jun. 2012.

“How the Government pays Muslims to vote Labour,” Daily Telegraph, 17 March 2009.

“Labour’s cover-up on immigration to be laid bare,” Sunday Telegraph, 25 Sept. 2011.

 

Lilley, Peter, “More Workers, Lower Living Standards,” Sunday Telegraph, 27 Aug. 2006.

“Lost in administration: Scandal over illegal immigrants hidden among 37,000 files of foreigners appealing to stay in Britain,” Daily Mail, 15 Oct 2011.

Migration Advisory Committee, “Analysis of the Impacts of Migration,” Jan. 2012.

“Paying the price for a decade of deception,” Daily Mail Online, 12 Feb. 2010.

Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords, “Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, 20 Jun. 2012,” uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012. 

“The right must learn the comfort of the strangers: Conservatives are falling into the same trap as Republicans by railing against immigration, not supporting growth,” Financial Times, 10 Apr. 2001.

 

 

 

 

Home

 

 

Copyright © 2012 - 13