Total Visits

Sunday, 23 February 2020

The consequences of an end to mass immigration

The consequences of an end to mass immigration

The Liberal Internationalists tell us that the woes  of  the  world would come upon  us  should we end mass immigration,  although,  like  Lear threatening retribution, (“I will do such things–   What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be the terrors of the earth.”)   they are unable  to  say  exactly what the woes  will be.  In fact, I cannot recall ever having seen an article in the “mainstream” media which goes beyond lazy generalisation about “competing in a global market” or  “driving private enterprise abroad”.    Let me see if I can make a better fist of analysing what would happen.
To stop mass immigration would require withdrawal from  the  EU,  the repudiation of other treaties such as the UN Convention  on Refugees (UNCR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),  the repeal of the Human Rights Act (HRA) and the ending  of the rules which make it easy for new immigrants to settle here for the purpose of joining  relatives already here, for marriage and on compassionate grounds.  Consequently,  the consideration of the effects of mass immigration has to take in both  the practical effects of  its cessation on our labour market and its international repercussions.

The effects on the labour market

There would be greatly improved employment  opportunities for the English.  The  labour market would tighten and wages would rise. That would place extra costs on employers but they could be offset by a reduction in taxation due to millions of people being employed who are currently unemployed. Nor would  wages rise uniformly. 

Labour   would  move    into  those   occupations  which  are essential   and  which   cannot  be provided  at    a   distance,   for  example     healthcare     and  education.  We  would   discover    how  occupations   rank in terms of  utility.  Wages  would  rise  in  those occupations which had most utility to  attract  staff from elsewhere. This could have surprising results. We might find that vital jobs considered menial now would pay much more once cheap labour could no longer be brought in.   This would be justice for the many who have seen their jobs undervalued  because of the ability of employers to use cheap immigrant labour.

Employers  would  respond  to labour  tightening   by   using    labour  more  efficiently.   

Automation  would increase  and  employers   would  change their attitude  to  the employment of the long-term unemployed,  older  people  and  the disabled. Both  employers and government would  take vocational   training   more seriously.   Government  would  provide  incentives to employers to train  their staff and  increase  the  training  of    public   service   professionals such as doctors and dentists.  Government would also  be forced  to tackle the mess which is our public education to  ensure  an adequately educated workforce.  

Employers  who could not find the labour to run their business in  this country would have to accept they could not do so.   No one has a right to engage in an enterprise regardless of the effects on the welfare  of the community as a whole which is effectively the present position. Capital which cannot be used in this country can be invested  abroad.  The balance of payments would be improved by  a reduction in money being remitted abroad by immigrants.
The increase in employment of the English would  be an immense social good beyond  reducing  the cost to the Exchequer  of  the  unemployed,  for people are generally happier and responsible  when employed .    

 The  pressure  on  public services,  transport   and housing would be lessened making  access  to them  easier  for the English.   In particular, reduced demand for housing would reduce the cost of purchasing, leasing or renting property for private individuals, public bodies, charities  and private companies.   An ending of mass immigration would also curtail  the substantial cost of providing  the benefits of the welfare state to immigrants as soon as they gain the right to legal long term residence here.

Fewer legal  immigrants would allow much greater supervision of visitors to England – a significant minority of whom are health tourists  or who are here for criminal purposes – and a proper control and investigation of illegal immigrants. No more sending suspected illegals to the Croydon reception office under their own speed or leaving ports and airfields with an inadequate or completely absent Borders Agency  presence.   The repeal of the HRA, our departure from the EU  and the repudiation of the ECHR and the UNCHR  would allow our authorities to deport people at will.  We could then not only refuse new immigrants but  start removing the  illegal immigrants who are already here.

Would there be an unmanageable  labour shortage?

The  idea  that  England  is  short of  labour  for  most  purposes  is    demonstrably  absurd.   The official figure  for those of working  age who are economically inactive in the UK is  approximately 9.5 million, or nearly a quarter of the age group. Home - Office for National Statistics.  Clearly not all of those would be able or willing to work,  but equally clearly  a large proportion would be able and willing to work  if  the conditions  were  right, for example,   wages  rose,   employers  became  more accommodating  and the benefits system was tightened as the  number  of opportunities for work rose.  

The   claim  that  the   indigenous   population   will  not   do   the jobs  immigrants take  is  also demonstrably false.  In areas of the country with  few  immigrants,  natives do them willingly.   In  many instances  where foreign workers are employed it is not because  natives will not work. Take  the case of the cockle-pickers who died in Morecombe  Bay  several years ago  it  was   widely  reported  in   the  media  that   the   Chinese  cockle  pickers   clashed  with English cockle  pickers   who resented  them  invading their  territory.  These   Chinese   were  not  
filling  jobs  which  were  unfilled   by   the  English  but  competing with the English for the work.
More generally, one of the great lies of modern British politics is that employers are unable to recruit from the native population, especially for unskilled labour. Vast swathes of work have been effectively denied to the native population  by collusion between employers and those who supply labour.  This happens both within the ethnic minorities who only employ from their own ethnic group and within immigrant labour which commonly works through gangmasters who are immigrants themselves. This does not just work in areas such as fruit picking  and factory assembly work but in areas such as the NHS where we have the absurdity of doctors and nurses trained in the UK at our expense having to go abroad to find jobs because immigrants are employed here.

The other thing which prevents the native English taking jobs in some parts of the country is the fact that the native English does not want to work for employers whose workforce is predominantly formed of  immigrants or native-born ethnic minorities. Like every other people,  native English do  not  wish to be  forced to work in their own land in  an  employment where they are in the minority, especially where they could find themselves in a situation where the workplace language is not English.

It is also important to understand  that the menial  jobs immigrants  take are worth far more to them than to a native Englishman.  If you earn as little as £200 a week net – many immigrants work cash in hand – and  live  in accommodation   either   supplied  by  an  employer   or   in   crowded accommodation for very little rent –   you will probably still be able to save a substantial amount, say,  £2,000 pa.

If  you  come from China where wages  even in the  big  cities are  50 pence an hour, you would earn £1,,000 pa for a 40 hour week.  Working at a  menial job in England allows you to save double the average  Chinese big  city annual wage in a year. That money remitted to China takes  on the  local purchasing power.  The multiplier for Eastern  Europeans  is less,  but even there £2,000 saved in a year would be a good professional salary in places such as Poland. Give the native English the chance to save the  equivalent  of a British professional’s salary in a year  doing  a menial job and they will flock to the work and put up with basic living conditions.  Of course, no such employments are on offer to  the English.

As for skilled workers,  there are few skills which cannot either be taught in a relatively short time or purchased from people working abroad.  There are far  fewer absolutely indispensible skills. In addition, many skilled English might decide to  return  because   the ending of mass  immigration would  signal that there was once again  a clear distinction between the  rights  of the English and the rights of foreigner. This would alter radically the  moral climate in England which could have a profound effect on the  way in which English émigrés view their homeland.

The international effect

There would almost certainly be a great uproar if we ended mass immigration. But  the roar would come from a paper tiger because those most affected would come from the Third World with which we have little trade and where our national interest is rarely, if ever, at risk.

As  a permanent member of the security council of the UN  the UK can veto any UN sanctions or even attempts to pass motions to censure her.  England is also an important member of institutions such as the IMF and  World Bank and could cause a good deal of trouble for the nations most likely to need the aid of  such organisations.

Then there is the inconvenient  fact  for critics  that no government in the world is officially for uncontrolled immigration.   Even more embarrassing, most of the members of the UN have immigration regimes incomparably harsher than Britain has at present.  A phrase including glass houses and stones comes to mind.

As for international  trade there is no reason to imagine that England would suffer. The vast majority of our trade is with the developed world.   It is in the self-interest of  our trading partners to prevent action against England because England is not only an important importer  but an important exporter.  To take just one example, and a very potent one, England’s arms industry is one of the largest  in the world.  The willingness to sell arms is a strong bargaining card with every country on the planet.  England is also tied into the economies of the developed world  through joint projects such as Airbus and the supply of parts to industries such as car-making (a great deal is supplied to German makes believe it or not).    The developed world, including the EU, would simply cut off their noses to spite their faces if they took action against England.  There are also the rules of the WTO agreements which would prevent such behaviour.

What of the English who are living abroad? It is unlikely their host countries would act against them for the simple reason there are substantial communities of citizens from those host countries resident in England. It is also true that most English living abroad do so in the developed world, the countries of which are  much less likely to expel those legally resident en masse than a third world dictatorship.  Moreover, in most cases England would have more foreigners of a particular nationality living in England than any foreign country has of English living in their country. The balance of trade would be very much in England’s favour if reciprocal mass expulsions  resulted.

Do the English want an end to mass immigration?

In these politically correct times where people have learnt that to speak against pc orthodoxy is a dangerous thing which can result in the loss of your job or criminal prosecution,  it is difficult to get an honest answer to a polling question such as “Do you think post-war immigration has been a good or bad thing?” or “Do you think immigration should be reduced?”, although even with such questions  a healthy minority give the non-pc answer.. To get at the truth one has to look at the responses to questions such as “Do you think we should be tougher on illegal immigrants?”. These type of questions invariably produces the sort of answer which would have brought a smile to a Soviet apparatchik,  commonly being above 80%  for tougher action, which is pretty astounding when around 10% of the UK population is comprised of immigrants.

It is also noteworthy that concern about immigration has been at the top of issues concerning the English for years; this despite the fact that every mainstream British political party has,  with the willing collusion of the British mainstream media, done  everything they can to suppress public debate about the issue.   

Anyone who believes that the English people welcomed the post-war immigration and want more of it is self-deluding to the point of imbecility.

Robert Henderson has kindly let me edit this article.


  1. Yes, but it all means nothing unless we scrap the Malthusian Zero Carbon policy. There is no electoral mandate for it, the next Brexit is Climate Change. We must demand a referendum on Zero Carbon or else it will be the English fleeing these shores to places like USA.

    We have truly won the battle, not when mass migration has ended, but when a government has the balls to put out positive propaganda like this, fuelling our cities with Welsh, Northamptonshire and Northumbrian coal and coal gas:

    Public Service Broadcasting "People will always need coal"

  2. Being of a simple mind I see things simply, and this is what I see:

    1. our MPs and other politicians are pre-selected for "liberal" tendencies before serious consideration as electoral candidates (cf the devotion to diversity of persons to be appointed to judicial office as remarked on by Mr Tilbrook elsewhere).

    2. the power of money issue and control determines these policies and that power is not vested in Parliament although it should be.

    3. hence we live not in a democracy but in a plutocracy, where the true constituency of MPs is not the electorate but international flight capital and its controllers (notably from around 1979 under Thatcher when exchange controls and e.g the new issues queue began being abolished). To them the UK is not a culture but an economic zone. The principal offices of Cabinet are now not even occupied by ethnic Britons/English.

    4. our corrupt monetary system whose existence ensures there is never enough interest "in the system" to service existing indebtedness without creating new loans and monetising them not only is inconsistent with ecological considerations of "limits to growth" but will ensure the recipients of interest will eventually end up owning the world. (No, not all interest is "usury", merely the interest of any amount on an *unproductive* loan). The silence of the Greens et al. is deafening.

    5. add to that an ongoing and increasingly palpable racial war against the indigenous British and other Whites in this country, symptoms including the largely unsanctioned mass rape of White children by aliens and the rising tide of homelessness.

    Last week I passed through the City of London and was amazed to see tents erected on pavements and people sleeping in doorways. What must foreign dignitaries make of *that* when visiting the supposed engine room of the UK Economy?


    "As soon as you start debating the economics of mass immigration you have already lost.

    You have already conceded that even your identity has a price. You have ceded the qualitative to the quantitative.

    There is only one acceptable response - Fuck your GDP."

    Especially when that GDP includes the estimated proceeds of prostitution and drugs. Thanks George Osborne!

  4. Many, perhaps even the majority, of those who read this article, will agree with the facts stated. the problem is that, as a society, we have been silenced by the harsh treatment of a number of those who have been motivated enough to act. Several have been imprisoned, and many blocked from social media. Others have been lied to by BBC and the press.
    What pressure or action is the author intending?

  5. And, not content with putting Indian Subcontinentals in charge of Britain's treasury, business, industrial strategy, police, immigration, and legal system (Sunak, Sharma, Patel, Braverman and 4 of the 12 Judicial Appointments Commissioners, including the Chairman), it now looks as though a foreign government is secretly choosing Britain's Prime Ministers. Watch how Patel is being lined up as Britain's first "diverse" PM.
    Remember her secret meetings with the Israeli government, which merely got her sacked instead of arrested, then inexplicably appointed by Boris to the Home Office, where Teresa May also was before having her secret dinner with Britain's top rabbi the night before taking office as PM.
    The Globalists evidently knew that Muslim Trojan Horse Javid as PM would cause too much outrage, so they're lining up a Hindu woman first, to get Brits used to the idea.