On Immigration and Identity
There has not been a time in human history that we know of that has afforded such unprecedented movement from nation to nation for people. The 20th century began flightless, with a ferry from London to New York taking an average of about a week. And in just 76 years, with the conception of the now defunct Concord flight, this was cut to just three hours, ushering in a new era of fast, globalised travel.
During the same century, two world wars took place that fundamentally upended the notion of imperial rule and the establishment of supranational organisations such as the European Economic Community (the now European Union), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the United Nations (UN), and so on. Once the ashes had settled upon the battlefields across Europe in 1945, a new era of travel and movement across borders was set upon the world. The combination of these efforts to establish internationally driven economic cooperation and growth, along with increasingly cheaper and more reliable travel from one nation to another, allowed for human movement to burgeon like never seen before.
In fact, it was soon after the end of the war that Britain began its demographic change. The British Nationality Act was passed in 1948, which abolished the old common-law basis of nationality, replacing it with a system in which citizens of independent Commonwealth countries and Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) were treated interchangeably for UK entry purposes. Up until the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, there was effectively no immigration control on Commonwealth citizens. An Englishman born in Birmingham and a person from the Indian subcontinent, the Caribbean or Africa were, in UK law, indistinguishable in their right to enter and settle.
This debate prompted Enoch Powell to make his fiery 'River of Blood' speech, which has become infamous. As controversial as it may have been, the questions raised towards the British policy at the time are still as pertinent as they remain today. Particularly now in the UK, where immigration is now the number one issue for voters across the country, there appears to be a growing consensus that such technological developments and the establishment of international bodies have undermined native populations.
This poll, conducted by UK in a Changing Europe, shows why 52% of the British public opted to leave the European Union, with control of immigration being ranked as most important among participants.
Now, with the UK ten years further on from voting to leave, still with objectively weak controls over its immigration system (see "Record 230 people cross Channel in one small boat"), the issue seems to be even more pronounced. With the recent emergence of Restore Britain, who seek to deport all illegal migrants and prioritise the "ethnic security of native Britons", the conversation surrounding British identity, culture and citizenship seems as critical as ever.
Within the conversation lies a key question: What exactly does it mean to be "British"? Those on the fringes of the right, but no doubt an increasing number of citizens, posit that to be British means to be ethnically tied to the country. I.e, unless your family lineage can be traced many generations back to the land, you fall short of being "truly British". Recently, this argument was made by Rupert Lowe, Restore Britain's leader, who recently failed to say whether Charles III could even be deemed a "White Briton". This is because Charles draws on the Greek heritage of his father, Philip, who was born in Corfu, and of course, further back, there is German ancestry in the mix as well.
These kinds of arguments are usually circular and can often lead to many rabbit holes, the one above being a prime example. Practically, if Restore Britain is truly serious about maintaining the white British population, where are the lines drawn? Nonetheless, the argument made is still valuable, as at the very least it prompts conversations that need to be had.
However, necessarily, the debate above is one within a larger issue:
However you define a white Briton, the story is a lamentable one, largely because immigration has replaced native childbirth as a means of population maintenance. From Sky News:
"Net migration - the difference between the number of people moving long-term to the country and the number leaving - is expected to be the only driver of UK population growth during the next few decades."
As I have said before, a nation is its people: China wouldn't be China if Chinese people didn't live there. The same applies.
Now of course, there are exceptions. A family fleeing a war-torn country, seeking a better life, that works hard for it, should be allowed to do so, as long as the economy is largely free of state guarantees for these people, and if there is a cap which prevents the system from being manipulated. Part of what has made the UK such a lucrative destination for migrants and asylum seekers is thanks to what they're given. Put up, in some cases, in fancy hotels, with access to free phones and comforts, the system is engineered towards higher government costs.
Secondly, the argument is often weaponised by those who seek to undermine the sovereignty of the native population that has been living in the UK for generations. Strangely, this empathy seems to be applied indiscriminately to all immigrants, when it so obviously cannot be. The work done on the independent rape gang report shows the scale of evil committed on a huge scale by, in many cases, illegal immigrants, or legal 1st and 2nd generation immigrants.
The recent migrant disaster in Ceuta, where close to 50,000 Moroccan men stormed into Spanish territory, with no children or women to be seen, highlighted this issue.
As the caption points out correctly: "Literally throwing open the gates of the West to a horde of military-aged men? How many of these are criminals? Terrorists? How can you possibly know?" You couldn't know, and yet the Spanish "border force" seems insouciant o the matter. And now they exist in EU territory, allowing the free movement of people, goods, services and capital within the internal market. As such, those new Spanish citizens become citizens of France, Germany, or wherever else tickles their fancy. In the 21st century, you really can do anything.
Alas, such international bodies were created in the interest of the time, to prevent another cataclysmic war from engulfing an entire continent, or even several, as the world wars did. This was all well-intentioned at the time; a pragmatic response to a worldwide catastrophe. But this isn't 1950 anymore, and national sovereignty has been surrendered in the name of collective ideals and policies that have undermined decision-makers for entire countries. The terms on which national identity rests are becoming far more nebulous.
In response to such questions surrounding identity, many cite "British values" as a test of inherent "Britishness". When people are asked to define such "values", though, many fall short. Even the previous prime minister failed to define such a term, which isn't hard to see why. Whilst undergoing slow but harmful demographic change, the UK is bereft of any kind of meaningful "values". What of the value of a small state? What of the value of a low-tax, high-trust society? Such truths which were held with reverence for hundreds of years?
Evidently, values change. Homosexuality was, up until the latter half of the previous century, seen as shameful and wrong by much of the population. Now, it is widely accepted. However, this was done organically, without foreign-born influence. Yet take a look at where those on small boats are crossing from:
Notice a pattern? In all such places, homosexuality is outlawed, and often met with corporal or capital punishment. So why would the UK choose to accept them? Why choose to import those from cultures that enforce face coverings for Women? Well, maybe not choose, but actively ignore...
The UK still finds itself in such a quandary, largely because the political class have ignored basic facts: that there are clear differences between peoples living in different parts of the world, culturally and ideologically. Economically, there still seems to be a huge disconnect too: how can mass immigration feasibly work alongside a nationalised health service, along with many other services provided by the taxpayer?
These issues are the type the political class doesn't dare touch, out of fear of losing their jobs or being cancelled online. Though if they were to have a conversation with the average voter, the issue would almost immediately be brought up. This can't be democracy, right?
Comments